(*Note* The date on this video mistakenly shows 1.04.2012 when it should actually read 1.14.2012, which is the day after the incident occurred.)
Ryan will NOT be taking a plea deal for the outrageous charges that followed this incident:

To learn his charges, continue reading…

In the words of the state agents who arrested him, Ryan did “purposely exercise unauthorized
control over the property of another, to wit, a $4.00 parking fee, which was owed to the Manchester-Boston regional Airport with the purpose to deprive the owner thereof, AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.”

This is a Class B Misdemeanor, which means it is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.

The charges continue:

The agents claim Ryan “recklessly created a risk thereof, by disrupting the orderly conduct of the business, Manchester-Boston Regional Airport, by refusing to pay his fee and block traffic, AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.”

This is a Class A Misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to a year in jail AND a $1,000 fine. This second charge seems to contradict the first. If he was being a thief, then he wouldn’t block up traffic; he would escape. This charge seems to suggest that he was having a conversation with the toll collector, as he states in his video testimony. This language is flowery and severely written by an agent who was not present at the scene of the alleged “crimes.”

The charges continue…

A 3rd charge, another Class A Misdemeanor, “Placing others in Danger” “The defendant did recklessly engage in conduct, by quickly accelerating his vehicle forward and backwards, causing the tires to spin, while in a confined area where people and other vehicles were located, which placed, or may have placed, the public in danger of serious bodily injury, AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.”

This seems highly unlikely to me, seeing as I know Ryan and spend a great deal of time with him. I know him to be a peaceful person who is level-headed and calm as a buddha. There’s no way he went on a crazy spin-out like some hot-headed redneck.

To add insult to injury, agents of the state charged Ryan with a 4th crime, “Resisting Arrest.” In the words of the state agents, “the defendant did knowingly physically interfere with a person he recognized to be a law enforcement officer, to wit Police Officer Kevin M Mulcahy of the Keene Police Department, by clasping his hands in front of his chest and twisting his body in an effort to resist being handcuffed, while said officer was seeking to arrest Ryan Maddox, AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.”

I can’t be sure of the intention of any particular law, but do you the reader think that the intention of the “Resisting Arrest” charge was for actions like those described above? Call me crazy, but that sounds like a pretty typical arrest to me. What law enforcement officer doesn’t expect the people they come after to struggle? Are free people supposed to just freeze and stick out their wrists whenever a man in uniform comes by? I would imagine that if the people who wrote the “Resisting Arrest” law had any good intentions whatsoever, it was to give justice to those law enforcement officers who had been beaten and seriously injured as a result of them carrying out the course of their duties (arresting people). Someone “clasping his hands” and “twisting” should be easily overcome by any officer, especially when the person being apprehended is Ryan, who is a pretty small guy.

Why is Ryan coming forward to the public with all of this information about his case? Because he hasn’t done anything wrong, he hasn’t hurt anyone, and if anyone is committing wrongdoing, it is the agents of the state! So… will he be taking a plea deal? No way in Hades!

Saturday, February 4th was a national day of action against agitation for war with Iran. With my camera charged up, I made my first stop on the mild winter day the Barack Obama campaign office in Nashua, which had an opening celebration at 10:00am. I showed up to meet Occupy NH participants who had brought literature to distribute. I went about my usual chalking, focusing on messages that I hoped would make supporters of the president question their commitment.

Some suits emerged from the building, looked around, and went back inside. As I was keeping the chalking away from a portion of pavement under an overhang, and in the public area of the sidewalk, I knew that there could not be a claim that I was chalking any private property. Aside from myself, only one other person chose to participate in the chalking.

Three police cars eventually arrive. An officer politely asks the group to be sure that they do not block the sidewalk, as they had received complaints. He was brief, leaving after having relayed the information.

Up the street, the officer from the lead car was speaking with a man in a red jacket. I filmed from a distance, and noticed when the police began moving away from him. You could hear him yell, “These people have no right! No right to deface public property!”

You can see in the video his profane reaction when I try to converse with him after the police leave. He went on to deny the first amendment freedom of speech, and imply that I was morally transgressing by speaking against “your president” and “your country”. Yet another example of an individual so detached from his fellow man that when he is offended by an action (chalking) he first goes to an agent of aggression, rather than have the courage to politely and respectfully address the issue himself.

Kudos to the Nashua PD for choosing not to interfere when there was clearly no wrongdoing going on.

My next stop of the day was an Antiwar Rally at Veterans Park in Manchester, which began at noon. Coverage of that event coming soon.

This article originally published at freeconcord.org.

As is to be expected, those that escalate the drug war, the enforcers who invest their consciences into the fight, will speak at hearings impassioned to continue what they consider to be important work. Occasionally, those who are invested in such work recognize it to be harmful in nature, and separate themselves from the job that they do to speak out against the ill caused by the role that they play. Such rejection of the standard rally cry to continue the war on drugs is voiced by Richard Van Wickler, who in his day job is the administrator of the Cheshire county jail. He comes to the hearing acknowledging that he is not representing the role he plays at his job, and that he has taken a vacation day to express his personal feelings before decision makers in Concord. Richard is one of the few speakers on behalf of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition who is currently employed in the criminal justice industry, showing how unpopular holding such a viewpoint is while actively working in the field. Below is a link to his testimony favoring the legalization legislation, as filmed by Biker Bill.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vKVpBk9OHbM

Prohibition’s latest warriors

At the restricted-legalization hearing on HB 1705, the chief of police of Franklin appeared before the committee in full uniform representing the NH Chiefs of Police Association, who always send a representative to speak against any drug policy reform. In the past, an Enfield police chief was the usual spokesman. Since appearing on an episode of NH Outlook in which he was schooled with information on medicinal cannabis, that chief has not appeared at committee hearings. At the decrim hearing, HB 1526, the room appeared populated with the normal handful of lobbyists and concerned citizens. But in glancing at the blue sheet, a form which expresses generic support or opposition for those present, there was a significant population of names in opposition who were not in the room. Alongside their names was listed the Franklin Youth Initiative, and all had marked themselves as in opposition to the bill.

After the representatives and a few government officials spoke both for and against the bill, the call was made for the next speaker by the committee chair. The Franklin Youth Initiative was summoned. The crew of five high school students and a health teacher from Franklin High School proceeded in and stood at the table for testimony. The teacher and one student had prepared statements, and all responded to some questions by legislators.

Arguing in favor of strict cannabis enforcement, FYI didn’t try to acknowledge the failures of prohibition in preventing drug use. Their plea focused on the aura of fear associated with the black market and the importance of retaining that aura of criminality. The harsh punishment they consider a necessity in exchange for a perceived deterrent effect that strict laws may have. They submitted written testimony to the committee on the dangers of cannabis use. The written testimony consisted of an inconclusive study published by the Psychiatric Times investigating a link between cannabis use and schizophrenia.

Though the committee asked them some wise questions, I wanted to learn more about the motivations of the Franklin Youth Initiative. After they had finished speaking, they left the hearing and went out into the often busy hall. Instead of a camera, in my hand was a notepad, and I recorded responses from the group. I began by confirming that they opposed the decriminalization of all drugs, which they affirmed, except alcohol. Though the group discouraged the use of alcohol, none of them supported the prohibition of the drug. When I asked if they could account for the violent crime associated with prohibited substances and what becomes of that crime when the substance is legalized, I got the impression that this may be the first time many of the students were hearing factual points in favor of drug legalization and against prohibition policy.

When I inquired into whether they would support the sick having access to cannabis as medicine, they cited synthetical marinol being an ample substitute. I didn’t want to much venture into the realm of educator from interviewer in pointing out that cannabis is often smoked as medicine to stimulate appetite in cancer patients. The pill form marinol is not only less tested than natural cannabis, but it also may not be consumable by those whose problems are digestive in nature. In speaking further on the benefits of medical alternatives to cannabis, one student reported that approved medicines are safer in that the toxic substances in the cannabis are removed. No scientific research has uncovered any substances within cannabis that could be classified as toxic, as it is one of the safest consumable substances known to man, being less toxic than many natural foods which would never be considered dangerous.

Early in the video, the health teacher mentions that “the FYI is working with the Franklin mayor’s drug task force”. It is likely the trip was organized by the bureaucratic opponents of cannabis reform, using the participation of young people to draw attention to the bill. Their testimony seemed as though it would have been more appropriate at the legalization hearing, though strategically they may have chosen to appear at the decrim hearing because the less extensive measure is more likely to pass.

I hope that the young people of the Franklin Youth Initiative keep an open mind to what it is that they are encouraging by advocating non-violent actions be treated as criminal, and responded to violently. See the footage of their appearance before the house criminal justice committee embedded below.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This article was originally published at freeconcord.org.

Yesterday while handing out some information at a local high school, the principal mistakenly things that free speech doesn’t apply in public spaces. Despite repeatedly making threats to use force (call the police), a student-council representative tells us he doesn’t appreciate how disrespectful the FreeKeene activists are toward the principal.

Are we forcing anyone to take the information? Will the police use force against us at the whim of a government worker’s say-so? You bet. I won’t speak for others, but I was prepared to be arrested if my only “crime” was handing out literature in a public space. Why? This is why:

On Thursday of this week, I was getting ready to leave for the Manchester Airport with Kelly when “code enforcer” Fred Parcells was spotted pulling out of my next-door-neighbor’s driveway. Then I realized that I had a ticket on my windshield, and so did Kelly!

Fred had sneakily pulled up into my neighbor’s driveway, and somehow plopped tickets on our two cars while we were outside in plain view. I say that he did it sneakily because despite the fact that we were outside about 20 feet away from our cars, he didn’t use his words to talk to us or make his presence apparent.

Over the last year, Fred has victimized me with a handful of tickets for crimes involving no victim. It’s part of his modus operandi to remain silent while dispensing state violence in the form of tickets. It seems he has forgotten how to deal with issues like a human being and instead resorts to threats of force in response to petty issues and made-up charges like this one. He has no obligation to ticket anyone, so he is pursuing these interactions intentionally despite what some may say about him “just doing his job.”

Last time I received a ticket from Fred, it was for the same charge: he claimed that my car was impeding the path of the sidewalk, which was untrue. It appears he just likes to boss people around and not stand behind his claims because the tickets that have been levied against me have all been dropped when I inform the court that I demand a trial.

It’s as simple as that. Hate paying tickets? Refuse to pay. Take the aggressors to court and make them PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) there is a victim, and 2) they can produce bulletproof evidence of the crime. Police can almost never do either of these things. That doesn’t mean you will win in court, but it does increase the likelihood that law enforcement will drop the charges.

Despite the fact that many jurisdictions reward the state aggressor with overtime (1.5x) hourly pay for testifying in court, many agents back down from those situations. They are, for the time being, unused to their victims standing up for themselves.

You can change that by clicking the banner ad above.

Sign the online petition to keep Keene Bearcat-free!

LENCO, the manufacturer of the BEARCAT, has this video on their youtube channel. As you can see, this vehicle is all about making the police feel as militaristic as possible – it’s not a “safety” vehicle as is being touted in the Sentinel. Searching google for “Special Missions Public Safety Vehicle”, as it has been referenced, reveals articles about Keene, but nothing from LENCO or elsewhere. Clearly, LENCO didn’t just go and make up a new model just for Keene, NH, so it’s more accurate to call it by its actual acronym: “Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck”

This is not a rescue vehicle…at least not for you. The “LE”, or Law Enforcement iteration of this armored personnel carrier has on its website as a feature: “open floorplan allows for response and rescue of downed personnel“. (emphasis added)

Please come out this Thursday and speak to the city commission on this matter. They need to hear from as many people as possible that it was a mistake to listen to the cops over the people. They need to get the message that Keene doesn’t want this monstrosity.

Cameraman Jason Rapsher is working on cutting up the full version, but here’s a taste of what to expect:

For a full-screen slideshow of the event, CLICK HERE.

If you enjoy this type of activism, help us keep it going by sponsoring these projects at FR33Agents.com!

New Hampshire’s highest court has upheld a woman’s marijuana-growing conviction, ruling she had no reasonable expectation to privacy in a wooded area of her property from which police observed her house and detected the smell of marijuana coming from a vent.

Patricia Smith of Haverhill was charged in 2009 after police raided her house and found a pot-growing operation and 120 plants. During court proceedings, a superior court denied Smith’s motion to suppress evidence.

In appealing to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Smith’s attorney argued that police violated Smith’s constitutional right to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches when they essentially conducted a stakeout in the woods behind her home.

Watch the following videos produced by myself and Garret Ean of Free Concord. When watching, ask yourself if you want to see Patricia Smith caged for growing her own medicine, in her own home. If you’re a citizen of New Hampshire or the United States this is being done in your name, with your money.

Fr33Agents.TV will be releasing two more videos this week from the same conversation that Bob Constantine and I had with Nurse Patricia. Footage from these conversations can also be found on the January 30th episode of Free Keene TV.

Click on the images in this post to view the three previous videos that Bob and I produced to bring more attention to the plight of a peaceful woman whose had her life destroyed by the State.

I was pulled over while driving 50 mph in a 55 mph zone. The officer alleges I was going 72. That is impossible because I was stuck behind a slow-moving pickup truck for about 20 miles, and that truck was keeping me slowed at a pace of 50 mph.

To learn more about why I take the time and energy to fight arbitrarily-written tickets, click below:

I was driving from Keene to Manchester with Luthor Kingsley of the Shire. We were about halfway there when I passed a cop. Luthor pointed him out; he was hiding on the side of the highway with his lights off. I checked my speed and was relieved to notice that I was going 50mph. I almost certainly would have been going faster if not for the truck in front of me holding me up in the single lane of traffic. Then I saw the blue lights behind me. I fired up my camera and asked Luthor to record.

The cop told me I couldn’t see the radar, that Luthor had to turn off the audio on the camera, that Luthor had to give the cop his ID, and that it was illegal wiretapping to record audio of him without his permission. We gave him a bit of a schooling in the law with polite refusal to comply with his demands. He returned with a ticket for $103.33.

I’ll be seeing him in court. I would rather be left alone. I don’t enjoy giving up my valuable time and energy and resources to defend myself against being extorted by agents of the state. I’ve already spent about 24 hours in filming, editing, researching law, and posting about this event. Now I’ll have a day in court, travel expenses, plus the opportunity costs of a day’s work in order to attend court, or I will have a warrant out for my arrest. Then, in court, if I am found guilty, I will likely face 2 days in jail to pay off the fine at $50 a day.

Some stranger with a badge is incentivized by a quota system to spend his time pulling over people like me who haven’t victimized anyone. For him, it’s 15 minutes and he can wash his hands of the situation and collect his paycheck–unless someone takes the issue to court rather than paying the fine. In that case, he is rewarded for his victimization by being paid time and a half for his appearance in court. The taxpayers of his town will be forced to foot the bill for that expense. As a result of his actions, I could be put in a cage (again at the expense of the taxpayer) for what was a non-situation.

The absurdity makes my head spin. If you’d like to help me meet expenses to handle this case successfully and document the process with video, please donate at LiveFreeOrDance.com