Federal law in the United States makes it a serious federal offense to possess a firearm or ammunition if you are a user of illegal drugs:

18 USC 922 – Unlawful acts

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess
in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive
any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce.

If you use cocaine and get caught possessing even a single round of ammunition, you can go to federal prison for multiple years depending on where you fall on the federal sentencing guidelines as established by the United States Sentencing Commission.

If you are a federal agent or police officer and decide to use cocaine, luckily, you are exempt from the laws that normally would put you in federal prison for being a “prohibited person” under the Gun Control Act of 1968 for ingesting your choice of intoxicating chemical substance:

18 USC 925 – Relief from disabilities

(a)(1) The provisions of this chapter, except for sections
922(d)(9) and 922(g)(9) and provisions relating to firearms subject
to the prohibitions of section 922(p), shall not apply with respect
to the transportation, shipment, receipt, possession, or
importation of any firearm or ammunition imported for, sold or
shipped to, or issued for the use of, the United States or any
department or agency thereof or any State or any department,
agency, or political subdivision thereof.

If government agents use cocaine with prostitutes and possess handguns and machine-guns on the cusp of the very serious responsibility of protecting the President of the United States in Columbia, they can only get fired because federal law doesn’t apply to them.

They are above that particular law.

CopBlock’s motto says: “Badges don’t grant extra rights,” but in reality… they do.

This stuff is happening in the United States of America. Really.

As an officer of the Court, I must ask you to comply with the Court’s order and stand under your own power when attending Jason’s trial tomorrow. If you don’t stand, you may be physically lifted or imprisoned.

If you’re unable to stand or are injured, you may just have to explain yourself further.

Remember:

Jason Talley filed a “Motion To Refrain From Authorizing Physical Force To Demand Respect.”

The State objected and supported the notion of continued violence to make people stand.

The Court sided with the State in an stamped order.

Jason filed a “Motion To Reconsider” his original motion asking the Court not to use violence against the public.

The Court denied the “Motion To Reconsider.“

There are countless examples of this, but here’s another one.

I’m currently facing a trespass charge for trying to do business at the “superior” court when I’d been “banned” by a flagrantly illegal order from local sheriff Dick Foote.

So, we’re mere days away from the trial date of April 17th, and the Cheshire attorney’s office has only just sent their witness list to me. Their rule, 2.10 B says:

Not less than 14 days prior to trial, the State shall provide the defendant with a list of names of witnesses, including experts and reports, and a list of any lab reports, with copies thereof, it anticipates introducing at trial.

It was less than a week prior to trial before I got the witness list, and it only came *after* I filed a motion to dismiss for the prosecutor’s failure to provide a witness list on time.

Edward Burke of district court blew off the motion and ignored rule 2.10 B by simply saying in his denial (PDF):

Because the Court is not persuaded that the state’s alleged failure to provide witness information in timely fashion has prejudiced the defendant, the Court is not inclined to dismiss the case.

Tom Ball (who self-immolated over the Keene “justice” system) was right. There is a set of rules for us regular folk, and a set of rules for the people calling themselves “the state”. The rules for us are constantly expanded, while their “rules” basically amount to, “we do what we want and make you pay for it”.

Questioning public officials is protected by the Constitution.

This petition is to support New Hampshire State Representatives that support accountability in the Judicial Branch. Support from the public is intended to help them seek permission from the Rules Committee to introduce immediate Articles of Impeachment against Judge Burke.

UPDATE: I understand Judge Burke has offended a great deal of people in the Keene community. That said, before you leave angry comments that could be interpreted as being threatening in nature, please consider assisting us in using the political process to hold the Judge accountable.

All threatening comments left on this blog will be deleted.

Thank you.

In a nail-biting turn of events, CACR 26 passed the N.H. House of Representatives by one vote!

This bill text proposes:

“That article 73-a of the second part of the constitution, relative to authorizing the chief justice of the supreme court to make rules governing the administration of all the courts of the state, be repealed.”

This is a critical piece of legislation as it proposes to strip the rule-making authority of the court, from the Supreme Court. The problem that we the people are faced with is that the cronyism of the N.H. Bar and the judicial “elite” has created overwhelming corruption within the judiciary.

There are currently no checks and balances against the judiciary’s self-governing, unaccountable tyranny. We urge you to call your N.H. Senator and urge them to vote “yes” to CACR 26 – to give the Courts back to the people!

Amending the New Hampshire Constitution effectively would force the New Hampshire Judicial Branch to no longer be a second and unaccountable legislature in our state. You know, an unaccountable legislature that allowed three unelected legislators to outlaw activity that can, and indeed did, catch their colleague breaking the law.

KEENE, N.H. — Several fights broke out at the Railroad Tavern on Railroad Street in Keene Friday night when officials with the state liquor enforcement arrived.Police said the liquor enforcement officials were doing a routine inspection when they discovered a 19-year-old man being served alcohol. When they tried to arrest the teen, Xavier Carter, he fought back and a fight ensued. At the same time, another, unrelated, fight broke outside and several other fights inside the bar erupted.When officers arrived, there were between 30 and 40 people fighting, but they quickly dispersed. Carter was charged with disorderly conduct for fighting with the liquor enforcement officials. Anthony Berardi, 29, was also charged with disorderly conduct. Police said he was actively hitting someone when they arrived. No one was seriously hurt in the brawl.It was not immediately known what, if any, action would be taken against the business.

So, basically, some adults were out peacefully enjoying adult recreation and adult beverages, not harming anybody; when criminal gang members who claim to represent the state of New Hampshire came into this privately owned establishment and caused a huge fight to break out.

Just doing their jobs, right?

A State Supreme Court justice illegally tried to influence his colleagues in his own divorce case, and the chief justice broke the law by listening to him, the state’s attorney general said today.

The announcement by Attorney General Philip T. McLaughlin led to the resignation of the justice, Stephen Thayer, and raised doubts about the future of Chief Justice David Brock.

Mr. McLaughlin said Justice Thayer had tried to influence the selection of substitute judges when his divorce came before the high court. The court’s justices disqualified themselves from hearing the appeal.

At a court meeting on Feb. 4, Chief Justice Brock announced that he had appointed two substitutes, including retired Judge George Pappagianis of Superior Court. The attorney general’s report said Justice Thayer immediately objected, saying: ”Oh no, don’t do that. Not Pappagianis.”

The court’s clerk later said that Chief Justice Brock told him to ”slow this down” and not tell Judge Pappagianis he had been appointed, but that he had already done so.

Mr. McLaughlin concluded that Justice Thayer was guilty of improper influence, a felony, and official oppression, a misdemeanor. But he said he had agreed not to prosecute Justice Thayer in return for his resignation.

Mr. McLaughlin said Chief Justice Brock, by listening to Justice Thayer, had broken a law that prohibits judges from hearing privately from anyone involved in a case. There is, however, no criminal penalty for violating that law.

Investigators also said Justice Thayer could have been charged with witness tampering and obstructing government for threatening Chief Justice Brock when he heard that accusations about the meeting on Feb. 4 were about to be forwarded to the authorities.

Mr. McLaughlin said Justice Thayer had called Chief Justice Brock and said: ”I’m not hanging alone. If any complaint is filed it’ll blow the place up.” Chief Justice Brock said he took that as a threat to himself and the court.

Mr. McLaughlin told Justice Thayer on Monday that he was the object of an investigation. On Wednesday, Justice Thayer, 54, offered to resign in return for not being prosecuted.

Mr. McLaughlin said he accepted the deal because, among other things, Justice Thayer’s comments to the court ”had, in essence, been invited by the chief justice’s demeanor and the court’s past practice.”

He also said that even if he had decided to prosecute Justice Thayer and had won a conviction, he would not have sought jail time ”given the nature of the offenses and Justice Thayer’s long public service.”

Gov. Jeanne Shaheen said the developments raised ”very serious questions” about the court’s conduct.

Independently, the state’s Judicial Conduct Committee is investigating Justice Thayer’s failure to report a $50,000 loan from a lawyer, Emile Bussiere, on annual financial disclosure forms from 1997 to 1999. Justice Thayer later amended the forms to disclose the loan.

The committee is also looking into Justice Thayer’s failure to report the loan on an application for a $55,000 home equity loan in 1997, and trying to determine whether he omitted other debts from a 1993 mortgage application.

From the motion:

6. The Defendant has copies of the three orders at issue. If the trial court deems the orders themselves relevant and admissible evidence, they can be admitted as trial exhibits by the proferring party. Testimony from judges regarding their mental process leading up to the issuance of their orders, however, is prohibited and properly excluded.

I have alleged (and personally complained to the Attorney Generals Office directly) that these court orders were enacted specifically to cover for Keene Circuit Court-District Division Presiding Judge Edward Burke who had been caught on camera telling a lie to have someone falsely arrested.  I could be arrested for the same thing that Judge Burke should be arrested for, were I fabricating information to the Attorney General for investigation.

The appearance and motion filed by Associate Attorney General Richard Head is here.

When you read it…  please contrast it with these two articles from the New Hampshire Constitution:

[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.

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.