Two nights ago two of Free Keene’s contributors had their constitutional rights violated by government employees that they both are forced to fund.  The argument of whether Ian Freeman and Sam Dodson were looking for a confrontation is irrelevant and no excuse for the behavior of government officials that was initiated by government officials.  In this state and country the government is prohibited from interfering with peaceful free speech and protest.  The onus is on government employees to comply with the entirety of the state and federal constitutions, at all times…  even when confronted by people peacefully expressing their displeasure at the continued enforcement of a government policy.

Especially when confronted by people peacefully expressing their displeasure at the continued enforcement of a government policy.

It was well publicized here on the blog that there would be a gathering of people at the Keene City Council meeting and that those people would be drinking from containers that could have alcohol in them.  From all accounts I’ve read, witnessed through video, and learned from speaking to the individuals involved, not a single disruption was caused at this particular meeting by the protesters.  The disruption ensued when the government employees and officials felt that the protesters were deflating their ego’s by mocking the way they choose to wield violence to control other people’s lives.

Facts:

1. The mayor, city manager, and police chief were aware that individuals may be consuming alcohol at the particular meeting they were attending on Thursday night.

2. Once at the meeting the mayor, city manager, and police chief identified several individuals who were quietly drinking out of bottles that might contain alcohol.

3. Drinking of non-alcoholic beverages from containers that appear to contain alcohol is not against state law or Keene ordinance.

4. The police chief embarked on an investigation to determine what was within the bottles in the possession of the protesters.

5. One protester waived her Part I, Article 19 and US Amendment 4 rights and consented to a search of the contents of her bottle.  The contents of the bottle revealed that she was only drinking water.  She was allowed to remain.

6. Ian Freeman and Sam Dodson invoked their rights under Part I, Article 19 and US Amendment 4 and refused the police chief’s request to search in the contents of their bottle.

7. As a result of the police chief’s inability to develop probable cause that Ian and Sam were breaking the law (or not breaking the law) they were ordered to leave.

8. Ian and Sam refused to comply with the order to leave.

The culmination of #1 and #2 would give the police reasonable suspicion that anyone present with a bottle mimicking a bottle for an alcoholic beverage was violating the town’s open container ordinance.  Reasonable suspicion only authorizes the police to conduct a brief detention and interrogation for the purpose of determining if probable cause exists to take enforcement action.  No citation can be issued, no property seized, and no arrest can be made absent probable cause.

The police chief’s actions in #5 have a direct nexus with his enforcement action taken against Ian and Sam in #7 and #8.  This clearly shows that if Ian and Sam had waived their constitutional rights that they too would have been allowed to remain present in a public meeting.  The issue with this though is that it flips the entire constitutional system upside down: you must waive two constitutional rights when “asked” by the police chief if you want to enjoy a third.

The New Hampshire Constitution in Part I, Article 8 states the following:

[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.

I’d be interested if anyone can make an argument supporting the notion that the police being unable to make a case that someone is violating the law, because the police are hampered by an individual choosing to assert their constitutional rights of privacy, constitutes a “reasonable” restriction and justification on stripping Ian and Sam of their clearly codified right to be present at the public meeting.

The law Ian and Sam were charged with violating states the following:

644:2 Disorderly Conduct. – A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:

II. He or she:

(b) Disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility;

Going on the facts as we know them…  can someone please tell me the difference in what Ian and Sam did versus the protester I mentioned in #5, OTHER than the fact that they refused to waive constitutional rights?

See where I’m going with this?

The police chief had absolutely no evidence that Ian or Sam were breaking the open container law.  In fact, they were not breaking the open container law.  Their invoking their rights pissed off the police chief and he retaliated by ordering them to leave.  Whether or not you agree with how Ian and Sam chose to protest this victimless law…  hopefully the patently unconstitutional way that the government officials in Keene conducted themselves causes you concern.

Click to Enlarge

This comic was inspired by a controversy over the Shire Society Declaration.  The construction of the declaration was begun with a work by Libertarian author, L. Neil Smith.  Many changes were made after a lengthy discussion, but they remain quite similar according to a number of people.  I haven’t actually read the original work and I got turned off to the discussion for reasons described here.  I did ultimately find myself in enough agreement with the final product to sign it.

L. Neil Smith feels he has been plagiarized and has even mentioned that he CCed an email complaint to his lawyer, though I have yet to hear of any explicit threats of legal action.  This has resulted in a lengthy discussion of the notion of intellectual property and whether it’s a valid claim of property from a voluntaryist viewpoint.

One of the most eminently reasonable comments I’ve read about this controversy is from the Free Talk Live forum:

Even if you subscribe to the theory that L. Neil’s words and ideas are his even if you buy them from him, he still would not own the application of such, which is what the Shire Society did.

That would be like John Shaw writing a book on making flat screens or film editing and then claiming to own all the flat screens or films that readers may create in the future.

And in fact, it seems like he’d be really proud that someone was inspired enough to want to put his idea into motion in such a bold way.

My own views of intellectual property are a bit nuanced.  I definitely don’t believe anyone is entitled to damages or restitution because someone copied, not stole, your shit.  In that sense, I’m completely anti-IP.  On the other hand, I believe in the notion of IP in the sense that you can own an idea to the extent that you can “protect it” without violence.  You can either keep it secret or you can do a good enough job of branding it or at least date-stamping it so others will have difficulty claiming it as their own.  That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to make money off of copies but it might help you to counter that and make the money yourself in a peaceful manner.  I’m also a big fan of people expanding on ideas and making them better.  I think claims of damages for copying are unreasonable and they impede that creative process which many consumers stand to benefit from.  I’m also a big fan of reverse-engineering actual physical products and making your own versions of them, possibly improved or just at a lower price.  Patents are bullshit.  This is something else that consumers stand to benefit greatly from.

The work above is actually an original work by Davi Barker.  Sure, he constructed it with slightly modified pieces of my comics, but it’s an original work that I feel he deserves credit for creating.  My comics are instantly reproducible and therefore not at all scarce.  It’s my responsibility to figure out how to make money from such a product.  I do feel I deserve the common courtesy of being given credit for the building blocks of it, but that doesn’t imply damages or restitution of any sort, and he did give me credit.  He was able to construct his comic without doing any damage to me or my property whatsoever.  It seems absurd to claim “damages”.  Such a claim relies on the absurd notion that you are entitled to make money off your works.  In fact, because he did provide such an obvious credit to the building blocks of his work, his comic will most likely act as free promotion of my works!  Why should I complain about that?

Refuse to be arrested for having done nothing immoral and having hurt no one, by defending yourself against the initiated violence of the state…  and the state will kill you.  You cannot defend yourself against state violence.  It is illegal.  State agents can kill anyone who defends themselves against state aggression.

It’s next week.  You’ve just finished a hard day of work.  You get together with yourself and go on the new New Hampshire Lottery Commission website while enjoying some cold beer.  You waste your entire life savings to the odds of the lottery system.  You’ve done nothing illegal.  The state has gotten its cut of your money.  Sucks to be you.

“The state will launch PlayNowNH.com on July 1. The site includes interactive games such as “Super Slots,” “Speed Bingo” and “New Hampshire Poker.””

Don’t you see the insanity of this?

The article is here.

I know several police officers who are lucky they were never caught committing various victimless drug felonies when they were younger adults.  If they had been caught and prosecuted (like the people they continue to advocate catching and prosecuting today) they would have been felons with a lifetime federal gun possession ban.  In other words, they never would be where they are today.  How quickly people develop amnesia and a lack of compassion for people who do the same victimless things that they’ve done.

I find particularly amusing that some of these same officers who have committed drug felonies are some of the same individuals who were so critical of me speaking out against the injustices of the drug war.  Logic: They were upset that I advocate(d) for people like them.  I digress.

It seems that a state correctional officer (you know, someone who keeps people locked in a cage for various victimless crimes…  like drug possession) who previously had been found to have violated a prisoners rights has been indicted by a grand jury for possession of steroids.

“In October, Kevin Valenti, along with Sgt. Michael Erdmark, each were ordered to pay a former prisoner $40,000 after a federal jury found they violated his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. The court also ruled the state should pay his legal fees that totaled nearly $30,000.”

“Cheever alleged he was handcuffed, assaulted and repeatedly hit in the torso and ribs and knocked out when his head was slammed against a wall. He also alleged the guards strapped him naked to a “flat chair.””

Everyone knows (or should know) that steroids and growth hormones make people more aggressive.  Shouldn’t that be a concern in a profession that has a monopoly on (and relies on) violence?  Some of the biggest bullies I have ever met are law enforcement officers.  Precisely the type of people you want with this type of authority.

I know police officers who have violated drug laws.

I know police officers who have children who have violated the drug laws.

None of them (even the most hypocritical ones) deserve to be criminals for it.

Though most will say this is not a big deal. I film police doing ‘little’ things wrong because it exposes the double standard police have. If it’s no big deal to be parking in illegal spots then why do they write so many tickets for them? Why are they allowed such privileges?

Better yet, where does this exemption stop? Is it just for parking while on duty? Or can this officer cruise by the store to do some shopping as well? Are officers exempt from the drug, gun and alcohol laws that? Don’t get me wrong I wish all these things would disappear. I ask officers to be ticketed or treated like they treat others because I feel that’s the only way for them to realize the cause of their actions.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I am displeased with the aggression against me. I will not be paying any citations or bills that are sent to me (the cop said he’s cite me and the fire department said they’s send me a bill for their “services”). But what bugs me the most is Babiarz’s cowardice to tell the cop that this was a perfectly safe situation and the violence wasn’t necessary, especially since Babiarz claims to be pro-liberty (hell, I heard him just last week at a potluck tell a “newbie” to liberty that government wasn’t necessary!).

Also, FYI, the previous owner of this property told me that Babiarz, himself, gave him a permit for this fire pit 2 years ago (and the shed existed even then), even though Babiarz, in the video, explains how this fire pit could not get a permit because it’s too close to a structure. And multiple other sources I trust have told me that Babiarz has hung out with them at this fire pit – with a fire burning – within the past couple years.

I’d like to stress that I was just living my life, peacefully, harmlessly. I was not trying to educate anyone about liberty, or make a point, or create a scene, or act civilly disobedient. The thugs came to me with their aggression, as they appear to do more and more often.

This is a thread about this on the forum.

“A New Hampshire police department is warning that a drug used to treat animals is being added to cocaine and sending users of the illegal drug to the hospital.”

During liquor prohibition this happened quite frequently.  Because alcohol is now a legal drug it is largely sold by professional companies who strive to make their products the absolute safest.  If Corona all the sudden had a reputation that it was killing people, you’d better believe that they’d be going out of business in short order.

Let’s face reality.  People in this world are going to choose to use cocaine.  I disagree with using cocaine and would attempt to talk someone out of making such a choice, but if they insist, I want them to be able to receive it from a professional source, one who is motivated to create a product that is not likely to cause their customer death.  So long as the drug war continues the chances of that are slim to none.

Like telling a kid sex is wrong and not to do it, telling people drugs are bad and not to use them will continue to be ineffective.

Grab the archive.

Do you love liberty and live, work in, visit, or plan to move to the Keene area? If so, it would be great for you to get involved with this project each week. Here’s how you can help:

Please join us for our weekly chat and calling sessions on Saturday mornings from 9a-12p in the Liberty Radio Network Chat room. If you’re online, you can listen to Talkback streamed live via the Liberty Radio Network and if you’re in the Keene area you can tune in to WKBK 1290 AM or 104.1 FM. The Talkback discussion thread is here on the Free Keene Forum.

This video from Seattle (which went viral today) is the real reason why the police do not want to be recorded:

Click here to view the embedded video.

If you don’t think people get arrested for filming their own law enforcement agents, please talk to our friend Cooper Travis about how he was arrested for filming the police as he was standing on his own property. In that particular case the Candia, NH Police administration did the right thing and ordered the arresting officer to release him without charges.  The same cannot be said for our friends who were recently arrested in Weare for doing similar.

They say a drunk driver drives numerous times wasted for every one time they are caught. Imagine how many times this now sincerely sorry officer had used racist slurs and assaulted members of the public before he was caught.

When this bill returns again in the NH General Court there simply is no excuse for law enforcement to oppose it. That is, if they really believe that police should be held to a “higher standard.”  How many police misconduct incidents have only seen the light of day due to a camera?

This misbehavior happens every day…. and this is how it is stopped.

(By the way….  The Police Chief’s Association here in New Hampshire thinks that the freelance journalist who caught this on tape should be arrested.  They opposed the law change here in New Hampshire which would have “allowed” this type of public recording.)

All this happens right in front of a Keene policewoman who refuses to even take a report, much less arrest  the out of control court employee.  Plans for a massive camera civil disobedience event are in the works. How much longer can this behavior go on, and how do you feel knowing you pay them to treat you this way?

I would like to add, this video quotes laws that I do not personally believe in.  The purpose of this video (along with our requests to “arrest that man” in the video) are used rhetorically to shed light on the hypocrisy of “government law”.  I think it was made profoundly clear the government only serves to protect itself, even at the expense of the safety of “the people”.

I do not advocate the use of force against another for non-violent acts; however, I feel defensive restraint is acceptable to prevent further harm.  In this case, I believe measures should be taken to see that Sam receives restitution, and the court security officer in question should be removed from his position.  This is not the first time this man has used violence for his own amusement, and I fear it won’t be the last.  Someone has told him he is allowed to use physical violence against his fellow human beings without recourse, and he seems to take pleasure in that.  He has become a danger and should have been removed from his position AND the building immediately following this incident.

At the very least, he should be ashamed.