AUDIO: Keene District Court-Church Denies Access to “Public” Trials

In yesterday’s blog I explained how I was denied access to a “public” trial at the Federal district church building last week in Concord. Today, I was also denied access at the state district church in Keene where I was attempting to view an in-person landlord-tenant hearing. I recorded audio of my encounter with the church security agents where they clearly deny my supposed right to observe government proceedings.

The eighth article of the New Hampshire Constitution’s Bill of Rights says government “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 guess the courts are going to claim it’s totally reasonable to lock down public access cause someone somewhere might have fallen ill?

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. They also do “telephonic hearings”.
    So much for facing your accusor.
    I motioned against it, DENIED.
    The prosecutor and judge in the so called “telephonic hearing” didn’t even identify themselves.
    Very Kafkaesque.

  2. Wow, thank you for sharing that, David. Any illusion of transparency or accountability has been wiped away.

  3. David, in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) the Supreme Court reversed the Maryland high court, reinstating the conviction. Justice O’Connor wrote for the majority, ruling that the Confrontation Clause merely embodies a “preference” for face-to-face, in person confrontation, which may be limited to satisfy sufficiently important interests. Because the child witness was cross-examined by the defendant’s attorney and her general demeanor was visible in the courtroom, the defendant had a constitutionally sufficient opportunity to test her credibility and the substance of her testimony before the jury.

  4. Ian, you know there is a pandemic going on. They aren’t going to just let you do what you want. You can cry and scream rights all you want but it won’t change anything at this time.

    No, it doesn’t affect your rights. It sounds like they tried to accommodate you for Cantwell’s trial.

  5. Jacks: You are a fucking dumb ass. This post had nothing to do with Cantwell’s trial. It was clearly stated in the article that this involved district court and a tenant landlord relationship. If you ever bothered to read and comprehend anything and would listen to what was posted you’d know that it involved Thirsty Owl and has nothing to do with Cantwell. Ian barely referenced his prior interaction at the federal court.

  6. James: While I don’t agree with the denial of the defendant’s right to address his accuser in that case it’s quite a jump to go from that to denying *any* public access.

    There is a reason that courts are supposed to be open to public. If they are not it creates a seriously dangerous situation where the people are kept ignorant of the abuses occurring. An authoritarian dictator can claim that his countrymen are free too while blatantly violating supposed rights through secret sham trials. The US might claim to be a free country yet the evidence suggests otherwise. They were already routinely violating the rights of the people routinely prior, but now, they have extended these violations further. We have little more than mock trials and they’re not even attempting to hide it.

    Sadly there aren’t enough people in any particular region interested in resolving this issue (yet?) or are even aware of the lies they’re being told. If we’re lucky there will come a day when a sufficient number of people have gathered in NH to take advantage of their rights and seek to re-establish them via any means available. There is a responsibility and a right reserved to the people to revolt against this system. A revolution has not regularly occurred and it is a failing of our system.

  7. kk – Interesting. I’m guessing you are not kk but another childish idiot who just likes to be a troll. If you are, my point stands that you are a childish person with small dick syndrome.

  8. having to call a number and talk to people who don’t even identify themselves. .. think about that. They are just voices on the phone and you are to trust that they are who they say they are, and by the way, vise versa. These people are in control of whether or not the cops come and bash your door in.
    I guess James defends this.
    My advise is to tell them you have no phone. And if they want to supply one, refuse it.
    Here’s another point: think about the unreliability out cell service!
    Does the reliability of cell service dictate whether or not the cops come to your door or not!?
    James sounds like a statist.
    Sorry James

  9. End even if they DID identify themselves, which they didn’t, I guess I just have to take their words now. And they have to take my word, that I’m me.
    This institution that STANDS ON evidence! Solid evidence!
    Now i just have to trust their words.

  10. That’s why you FACE YOUR ACCUSOR

  11. there’s so many reasons..: Think they will be more caring with a voice on a phone?
    Think they won’t be more cavalier?
    Plus they save cash. So i don’t get money’s worth.
    So I get worse service for the same price.

  12. excerpt from a very recent court filing of mine – “NOTICE TO THE STAR CHAMBER WANNABE COURT: I WILL not be held to any “7 minutes”. I am entitled to a full and complete understanding of the proceedings and I certainly cannot presume to, and nor can you force me to, come to that in “7 Minutes”. I WILL not be attending any STAR CHAMBER telephone hearing, declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL as late as 1980 in Virginia ( Richmond Newspapers Inc Vs VA, 448 US 555, 1980, Globe Newspapers Co Vs Superior Ct, 457 US 596 , 1982 ).”

  13. kk- The presumption of openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

  14. James you sound well versed. Like a lawyer or judge or something.
    It sounds like those arguments are weaker when it comes to the so called “telephonic hearings”.
    Because facing your accusor is core.
    And this virus isnt all that bad

  15. David, in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), the United States Supreme Court held that the daughter’s statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause. They reasoned that out-of-court statements can be admissible if they bear an adequate “indicia of reliability,” even if the declarant is not available to testify in court. They found that one could infer reliability in cases where the evidences falls “within a firmly rooted hearsay exception,” but even in other cases, if “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness” can be shown, the evidence would be admitted.

  16. Well my accuser is the state. And they make the rules.
    My rule is that I want to face my accuser.
    Also It was a pretrial hearing.
    Evidence wasn’t really being presented.
    I do know that the evidence of a court was woefully lacking.

  17. Did you get charged with trying to hump a teenaged girl, Crawford?

  18. Why do you name yourself after a racists nether regions. It’s disgusting

Care to comment?