NH ACLU Files Amicus Brief for Robin Hooders in Supreme Court Case

NH ACLUThe NH ACLU has filed their 42-page amicus in the Robin Hood NH supreme court case.

The NH ACLU’s attorney, Anthony J. Galdieri argues  that the city has no case when they claim Robin Hooders have engaged in “tortious interference”:

In the context of non-violent protests aimed at influencing societal or governmental change, tortious speech is only actionable if it amounts to violent or unlawful conduct.  See Claiborne
Hardware Co., 458 U.S. at 917-18 (holding in context of protest that the state may impose
damages only for violent or unlawful conduct, not for non-violent protected activity, even if
that non-violent protected activity causes economic harm).

The NH ACLU also affirms that the city’s proposed restrictions on Robin Hooders are unconstitutional, including a “buffer zone” where speaking to the meter maids would be prohibited, as would be recording them.  The  proposed restrictions are clear violations of NH Constitution article 8 and 22, which protect the right of people to access a responsive government and protect free speech.

Nor should the city be allowed to handle the Robin Hooders through the courts, says the ACLU: (more…)

Videographer Attacked for Recording in Keene

After video recording his arraignment for charges of Second-Degree Assault, James Michael Phillips and his posse, including Justin Paquette came across the street and knocked my camera to the ground.  Before attacking me and my property, it appears they called the police to the scene. When the police arrived, they investigated the crimes of theft and two assaults.

Here are the raw videos capturing the scene that unfolded. Unfortunately, each video cuts out after the assailants grab the cameras from my hands and threw them on the ground.


AKPF #1: Courtinuance

With the exciting double parking ticket trial of AKPF #1 co-producer Garret Ean last week, the audience is treated in this episodeakpf_trial_2014_07_18 to the complete and illustrated footage of the court hearing featuring infamous faces of the Keene criminal justice system. Judge Edward Burke hears the case brought forward by KPD prosecutor Jean Kilham, with AKPF agent Jane called upon as the sole witness. In this inquiry, we see how eager to object to anything and everything that the state’s representative is, and Burke also plays a significant role in tipping the hand of the defense on lines of questioning. Ultimately, most arguments are not permitted to be made, and the disproportionate fine of five dollars per offense is levied, though compensated partially in Obamacoin.

Hilarious Letter to Sentinel Proposes Near-Total Chalk Prohibition

Last Sunday John F. DiBernardo wrote this tongue-in-cheek LTE to the Keene Sentinel:


It is obvious to everyone in the area that the city of Keene has a problem with people writing and drawing with chalk on the sidewalks of the downtown business district. There have been many suggestions as to how to deal with this scourge, but none as basic, simple and reasonable as the solution I propose. The root of the problem is quite clear: the easy availability of chalk enables anyone to just grab a piece of chalk and, perhaps in a heated moment, or as an act of depraved indifference, to commit acts of drawing or writing that will be rued by all sensible members of society.


No rights are limitless; all we need are reasonable, commonsense city laws controlling the sale and possession of chalk. (more…)

AKPF #1: Ralstonians

akpfbadge_surveillanceThis week’s adventurous installment of AKPF #1 features historical documentation of presentations delivered in years past, combined with modern declarations straight from the source of the content in Keene, NH. Enjoy this creative imagining of artistic qualities courtesy of the Aqua Keene Parking Force.

Ian Freeman Threatened With Arrest for Chalking Supreme Court Sidewalk

Wednesday, June 18th 2014 – 10am – Activists convened at the NH Supreme Court to hear Rich Paul’s attorney argue for an appeal. That means even though Rich Paul lost his original trial, he can ask a higher court to hear arguments to decide if the original ruling was wrongly decided. If they decide to go forward with the appeal, Rich will have a whole new trial. The Supreme Court’s ruling is where laws are challenged and clarified. Whatever they decide has the potential to set future precedent.