The video is briefly prefaced with text stating, “If a person walked in to vote in the 2012 New Hampshire Primary, and said the names of multiple DEAD people…Could he receive a ballot to vote without showing any ID?” “© Project Veritas” is watermarked on the screen. If you watch for the entire ten minutes, you’ll see the same scene repeated multiple times. A man walks into a polling location wearing an inconspicuous camera on his person. He says, “Do you have a (name) on your list?” When asked to confirm the address and party registration, he says, “That is the address” and, “That is the registration”. Upon receiving a ballot, the man returns the ballot and insists on retrieving identification before casting a vote. The video ends with a less than climactic interview of poor audio quality with ward moderator Ryk Bullock.

There was much publicized discontent over a plan by some house republicans earlier last year to mandate voters provide photographic identification at the polls. Currently, potential voters are entitled to a ballot so long as they are willing to sign an affidavit affirming their residence within a particular ward. It is clear what the political motivation of the actors in the video are when they insist that poll workers check their IDs.

On this point, I don’t concur with the producers of the video, who sign off with, “Reporting for the Project Veritas, James O’Keefe and Spencer Meads”. While they made a noteworthy point about the ability to receive a ballot while impersonating the deceased, they did not prove that photo IDs are an imperative necessity for New Hampshire’s election process.

The first editorial published in the Concord Monitor critical of the actions of Project Veritas was penned by Zandra Rice Hawkins, the director of Granite State Progress. Zandra characterizes the actions of O’Keefe and Meads as breaking the law and obstructing the New Hampshire primary. To justify the claim that they had broken the law, she cites the voter fraud statute. In the statute, the act of impersonating another voter is criminalized, in addition to actually casting the fraudulent ballot. While the impersonation may be technically illegal, clearly the spirit of the law is to prevent illegitimate votes from being cast.

Another law alleged to have been broken by the duo is the infamous wiretapping statute. Many who haven’t dug deeply into the applications of the statute falsely believe the law to require consent to audio record an individual. Despite the word “consent” appearing in the RSA, all that is required in the statute is that someone be aware that they could be recorded. When out in public, there’s no expectation of privacy, and apart from the voting booth itself, the polling location is considered to be a particularly public space. The process is considered so open that campaigns are permitted to host poll watchers, whose job it is to monitor the checklist for who has voted as poll workers check names off. On primary day, I volunteered in this capacity for the presidential candidate I dislike the least. While poll watching, a cameraman, likely from WMUR, set up his equipment near the entrance and got several wide shots of the slow action. He did not survey those in the room for consent to be recorded, nor was this his responsibility.

Zandra does not elaborate on how Project Veritas disrupted the primary. Nobody was prevented from voting, and it is not as though one particular poll worker is singled out in the video or made to look irresponsible. She analogizes, “It’s like saying that a bank could be robbed, then filming yourself robbing it to prove your point.” At this point, one is not even comparing apples and oranges. Robbing a bank and not casting fraudulent ballots go together like honeydew melons and predator drones.

While I strongly disagree with Zandra’s suggestion that making criminals of O’Keefe and company is a good idea, I appreciate that while making such strong statements, she was open enough to attach her name. The following day’s Concord Monitor included a follow-up piece, written under the anonymous moniker of the Monitor Editorial Board. The piece which ran on January 20 corrected the mistaken claim that Project Veritas had violated the wiretapping statute, but it took no shame in endorsing a prison sentence and tens of thousands of dollars in fines for the participants in the video. I suggest the editorial board of the Monitor give a second reading to the New Hampshire constitution, which humbly suggests in article 18 that “No wise legislature will affix the same punishment to the crimes of theft, forgery, and the like, which they do to those of murder and treason.” Amateur journalism ought be affixed the same penalty that every other nonviolent, victimless crime ought have: absolutely nothing. Those who call for noncriminals to be imprisoned are mobs endorsing institutional violence. The anonymous author exposes that (s)he cares less for election security than (s)he does seeing political opponents purged. Opening and closing with similar lines, the piece ends with, “The best way to ensure the sanctity of the vote is to make the penalty for daring to obstruct, defraud or otherwise game the system so onerous that only a fool would risk it.”

This approach is as shortsighted as the assumption that executing people for lesser offenses (such as narcotics as in Singapore and Saudi Arabia) will result in people choosing not to commit those offenses. The failure of this assumption is demonstrated as people continue to be executed in those countries year after year. In openly acknowledging in the middle of the article that nobody knows how much voter fraud goes on in the state, the author underscores the fact that putting up a tough front does nothing to deter actual criminals who are free to continue their clandestine activities.

A cheap and easy solution that doesn’t require the mass of voters to carry ID and would greatly deter the type of potential fraud that Project Veritas exposed would be to list dates of birth alongside name, address, and party registration on the voter rolls. Throwing more people in prison and putting them under tremendous financial distress does nothing but increase the State’s threshold for violence.

This article originally published at freeconcord.org.

Jan 30 2012: Yesterday’s Monitor featured a fair biographical piece on James O’Keefe. He directed the actions seen in the NH primary video from New Jersey, where he is prohibited from leaving. In early 2010, he pled guilty to entering a federal building under a false pretense, in connection to a phone jamming incident regarding a Louisiana senator. His probation is scheduled to expire in May of 2013. It turns out that O’Keefe is technically not an amateur to the extent that he is paid heavily for his exploits. Whether an amateur is defined by quality of work over whether one is paid up front, the videos that O’Keefe has produced speak for themselves.

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.

The Keene Sentinel has posted letters to the editor recently from locals who are very concerned over this monstrosity:

Here’s one from Craig Dallas Rice:

Citizens deserve a say on police truck

“There’s something happening here;

“What it is ain’t exactly clear;

“There’s a man with a gun over there;

“Telling me I got to beware;

“I think it’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound

Everybody look what’s going down”

(Buffalo Springfield, “For What It’s Worth”).

Homeland Security says we better beware. So do the Keene police. So does the Keene City Council.

But what do the citizens of Keene say?

I guess the City Council doesn’t care because we were not asked or allowed to discuss this at the City Council meeting where the council voted to get an armored truck called a Lenco BearCat Special Mission Public Safety Vehicle.

Is it possible that an armored truck could come in handy during an emergency involving armed killers? Bank robbers ready for a shootout? Driving up close to take a look at a suspicious package?

Of course it would. Of course they already train for these situations with what equipment they have now as well. If they need more they can call it in from somewhere else too.

These military-style vehicles are being used time and again to attack unarmed civilians all over the world by their own government forces (including police). There is an ever increasing military style of law enforcement in this country.

Remember Waco? Remember Ruby Ridge? More recently we have witnessed drones spying on U.S. citizens and heavy-handedness on the part of police during Occupy Wall Street crackdowns. Giving the police military style vehicles will only give them more excuses to use them in a military manner.

Once they have spent time and money training personnel on how to use this tactical vehicle, they will be itching to find ways to try it out.

I do not believe that we really need this vehicle in Keene. The Monadnock Region is one of the safest areas in the world. As it stands now, the police and rescue personnel do what they do with adequate and modern equipment. They can continue to improve the way they handle situations in the future without military-style enhancement. Policing will still involve the legal use of violence in some situations but if they need a tank or an airstrike, I guess it is still better to call the National Guard.

If we the people still have any say, I hope we will be heard to say no to the BearCat.

CRAIG DALLAS RICE

and another from David Crawford:

Keene does not need a tank.

I have had my ears and eyes open, and the vast majority of response to this tank we are getting is negative. It seems like the only people that were for it were the city councilors.

I call for a town meeting to reconsider this tank.

And a meeting where the townsfolk know about the meeting, and not one that is quick and barely publicized.

I am opposed to this tank, but if we must have it foisted upon us, I propose we immediately sell it to the highest bidder and and use the money toward the ice skating rink that has been proposed for the city.

We either get it and sell it, or we don’t get it at all.

DAVID CRAWFORD

and here’s another from Kelly Voluntaryist:

To Whom It May Concern / Keene City Council,

I write today with great concern in regards to the recent news that there will soon be a BearCat patrolling the streets of the city in which I call home. On December 15, the Keene City Council voted to accept a grant of $285,933 from the federal Department of Homeland Security for the purchase of a BearCat “Special Mission” Public Safety Vehicle. To clarify, a BearCat is an armored police vehicle which bears strong resemblance to vehicles used by the US Military in time of war. My first question is this: What rightful place could such a thing possibly have in the free, peaceful, society of Keene, New Hampshire?

According to police militarization expert Radley Balko, author of Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America (2006), which can be read in full as originally published by the Cato Institute (citation below):

“Americans have long maintained that a man’s home is his castle and that he has the right to defend it from unlawful intruders. Unfortunately, that right may be disappearing. Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work. The most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home.

These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.” (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/13673446)http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/13673446)

This is the future that the continued militarization of the Keene Police Department holds for the citizens of Keene. One only needs to watch the news or read a newspaper for further proof that a BearCat truly has no proper place in a peaceful society. As a government accountability activist in Arizona, I have closely witnessed the development of several up close and personal examples of police militarization and high level “government” corruption. One such instance took place when infamous Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio teamed up with reality actor Steven Seagal for an extra special episode of Steven Seagal: Lawman, the actor’s current A&E gig. They raided the home of Jesus Sanchez Llovera because, as a chicken farmer, he was suspected of “cockfighting”, which is illegal in the state of Arizona. Seagal drove the MCSO tank into Llovera’s home, causing thousands of dollars worth of damage. The Llovera family’s dog was executed in the raid, as were the chickens the raid was supposedly executed to protect.

Another example of the effects of a growing police state on a community was the murder of two time veteran and father Jose Guerena by the SWAT team in Tuscon, AZ. On the morning of May 5th, 2011, Guerena’s wife Vanessa saw men dressed in all black standing outside her home with automatic weapons. She screamed for her husband, who subsequently woke up and grabbed his gun, telling his wife to take their four year old son and hide in the closet. Unfortunately, the armed gang of thugs surrounding the Guerena’s home shot at him 71 times and left him there for dead; after surviving Iraq and Afghanistan, Jose Guerena bled to death on the floor of his own home, at the hands of his own government, as his wife and son watched in horror. The safety on his weapon had never even been deactivated.

Finally, one only needs to look at the violence initiated against the peaceful people at Occupy protests across the country for proof that militarization of police has no place in peaceful society. On the first night of the Occupy Phoenix protests in October, I along with a few hundred other protestors were directed to an enclosed park where we were told we could spend the night. As the evening wore on, we began to notice that the park was surrounded by hundreds of police vehicles and that police were setting up a tear gas truck. They had decided that we could not spend the night after all, and the incident ended with an army dressed in full black military gear and face masks turning off all power to the park and kidnapping 45 individuals in the dark. It was just as intimidating as they intended it to be and an experience I won’t soon forget.

Sadly, this is the reality of police militarization. It is also worth mentioning the question of who is paying for all of this? One only has to look at each and every one of their tax records to answer that. A large portion of the federal tax you pay goes to national defense, and is trickling down from the federal government to protect from “enemies foreign and domestic” thus initiating a war against anyone who is tired of having their rights violated, their freedoms stolen, and their property “repossessed” by the United States Government. The irony lies in the fact that we as a people are actively participating in our own destruction through both the legitimization and funding of our own slavery. As free human beings we have a moral obligation to withdraw our support of and consent to tyranny. I moved to Keene to escape the effects of police militarization and we must not allow this in our city! Personally, I neither support nor consent to a BearCat being driven through my backyard nor through that of my peaceful neighbors and I genuinely hope many others will join me in saying a great big NO to a BearCat in the city of Keene.

In liberty,

Kelly Voluntaryist

Seems the people of Keene know the police aren’t their friends and that it is they who are the greatest threat to our liberty.

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.

The prosecutor’s memo struck me with its unnecessary thickness. The memo was organized to the extent that it begins with legal arguments, but more than half of the final documents in the 79 page submission are completely irrelevant details obtained from house and senate hearings on the disorderly conduct statute in 2005. Much like the discovery packet, and a great portion of the Chalking 8 case itself, the State is throwing papers at the problem until one of them addresses the issue. With more Chalking 8 trials on the horizon, the State’s evidence will grow flimsier as the first not-guilty findings begin being issued. Rulings are expected to roll in around the new year.

See my two page memo striking to the root of the matter, and Attorney Greg Muller’s legalese composition below.

Defendant’s Memo of Law 2 page .pdf
Prosecutor’s Memo of Law 79 page .pdf

Pete Eyre, arrested at the same time as myself and who also has already had his trial, has uploaded both his own memo as well as Greg Muller’s 44 page memo from that case, which addresses different issues than were raised in mine.

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).

Here is my reply:

When I was a police officer in Epping I once arrested a man who was in possession of a stolen .22 caliber Röhm handgun. He was on his way to kill a witness in a grand jury proceeding in Kingston at the behest of his criminal organization.

This man had five violent felony convictions on his criminal history. Having more than three violent felony convictions on his record and being in possession of a firearm subjected him to a potential fifteen year federal prison term and a ten year state prison term. He was charged by the Rockingham County Attorney and sentenced to ten years in state prison.

Criminals, like the one who just shot the police officer near the Virginia Tech Campus, and the one I arrested in Epping, simply are not dissuaded by even the severest penalties imposed by law to curb their predatory behavior.

Gun control laws only make it easier for violent predators to choose a location that they know will offer them almost no resistance to their evil acts… and that is because law-abiding people typically adhere to ridiculous firearm restrictions.

This leaves everyone vulnerable and gives criminals the upper hand. Now more than ever responsible and law-abiding people in vulnerable settings like public universities need to think seriously about being proactive about their safety.

PSU students: please, don’t advocate for taking away your own self-defense rights. Criminals don’t care about the law.

The law only hurts good people, like you.

Well, actually, the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire and the University System of New Hampshire itself is the one with the response to this particular criticism. The response is found in University System of New Hampshire v. U.S. Gypsum 756 F.Supp. 640 (1991):

For purposes of this motion, the amount in controversy is not at issue. The issue is whether USNH is a citizen of the state of New Hampshire for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Defendants argue that USNH is a mere “arm” or “alter ego” of the state, and as such cannot be a citizen of New Hampshire for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff USNH contends that under New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (“RSA”) 187-A:1, it was established as a “body politic and corporate,”7 and thus, although it is a political subdivision of the state, it is not an “alter ego” of the state, and is therefore a citizen.

…

Based on its review of the status of USNH vis-a-vis the State of New Hampshire, the court finds that USNH is a governmental corporation of sufficient autonomy to escape designation as an alter ego of the state. USNH is therefore a citizen of New Hampshire, subject to the diversity jurisdiction of the federal court.

That’s right: the University System of New Hampshire argued in the United States District Court back in the early 90′s during an attempt to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction that it is a “political subdivision” of the State of New Hampshire. See section “c” of the statue I linked (28 USC 1332) to understand why USNH needed to be a “corporation” and not part of “the state” to proceed with their lawsuit. The court agreed with USNH’s argument.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind the University System of New Hampshire’s General Counsel (who will undoubedly be advising the Plymouth State University Police how to handle Tommy Mozingo and my information distribution on Friday) that this is still controlling law here in New Hampshire.

Quoting United States Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty in the 08/25/10 non-published opinion of John Collins, v. University of New Hampshire and Bruce L. Mallory (Civil No. 09-cv-78-LM) “While Univ. of N.H. vs. U.S. Gypsum Corp. is nearly 20 years old, it remains good law.”

To everyone who doesn’t speak state: I apologize for getting all legal-eezy on you about this. It unfortunately is necessary given the nature of the issue.

With this experience I feel I am in a fairly credible position to say that the judicial professionalism I witnessed under the supervision of Judge Lyons during the trial of State v. Garret Ean on 11/18/11 in Manchester, NH is the example that all judges and court security officers (CSO)/bailiffs in New Hampshire should strive to reach.

Before the trial began, a gentleman who appeared to be the supervisory CSO addressed the audience and asked politely that people turn their phone ringers off. As I looked around I saw something that rude CSO’s would rarely see: activists complying with this polite and reasonable request. During the trial Judge Lyons was extremely insightful and even helpful to Garret with interpreting and explaining the various rules of the circuit court system. He also went well out of his way to either respect the rights of and/or ignore Pete Eyre’s wearing of a Cop Block baseball hat on the stand as he testified.

I hope other judges and CSO’s in this state learn to exhibit as much respect to pro se liberty activist type litigants as Judge Lyons and his subordinate CSO’s did.

Who knows, maybe even the Judicial Branch in New Hampshire is starting to figure out how to deal with liberty activists without the headache: show respect and ignore things that really don’t matter.

Of course, they seemed to have the ball rolling a year ago before the site died.

For his first post, Manch’s Sovereign Curtis attacks Keene’s civil disobedience and cites the Manchester chalking arrests as an example of Manch’s superior civil disobedience scene. Of course he neglects to mention that the chalking event and the CopBlock event that he cites were started by Keeniacs Pete and Ademo of Liberty on Tour, on their visit to Manchester. Oops!

Rather than acknowledge those trail-blazing Keeniacs who have been doing civil disobedience and noncooperation for years, like Lauren Canario, the Trespassive Twelve, and Disobedient Seven, Curtis suggests Keene activists are a bunch of drunks.

It’s not starting a blog on the most positive footing, but Keeniacs should appreciate the hidden compliment in Curtis’ hitpiece. Despite the fact that Manch is more than four times the population of Keene and as a result already the king-of-the-activist-recruiting-hill, some activists there appear to feel the need to compare the Manch activism to our supposedly un-intelligent movement out West. (I think Curtis is secretly jealous that Keene won the Manch vs. Keene Karaoke competition at this years’ Porcfest.)

Apparently, Manchies were too busy with their Mock Trials to come out and support Pete Eyre in his chalking trial that happened IN Manchester. A few Manchies showed up (late), but were outnumbered by the Keeniacs who had carpooled out to support their friend. I’m sure the mock trials Curtis is promoting are valuable for those with no court experience, and considering that only now are trials actually happening in Manch, it makes sense to have them. Here in Keene, we’ve had various trials happening for years. Nothing can substitute for the experience of actually going to court – something at which Keeniacs are old-hat.

Seriously though, I hope Free Manch works out this time.