We have some good news for once from the FBI and the United States Attorney’s Office! After a long legal battle and multiple federal lawsuits, the FBI agreed to return our church property that was illegally seized on March 20, 2016. For those of you not familiar with the backstory, FBI Agents arrived at 73 Leverett Street on that day at 0600 hours and executed search warrant 16-MJ-36-01-06 against the Shire Free Church Monadnock. This raid occurred only two weeks after Minister Mark Edgington on Free Talk Live condemned the FBI for their strategy of running a website that resulted in the distribution of hundreds of thousands of pieces of child pornography to thousands of IP addresses while only making ten arrests. The sealed search warrant was presented in redacted form to the members of the church present for the raid, i.e. Minister Ian Freeman, Parishioner TJ The Spy, and Parishioner James “Robinhood” Cleveland. The warrant alleged that on or about February 20, 2015, someone using the IP address at 73 Leverett Street had accessed the website that was part of the FBI’s vast child pornography distribution network, in violation of 18 USC 2252.
The returned electronic items. Christmas came early!
On May 1st, Tony Schinella published an article on Patch.com reporting an accusation made by Francesca Potenza of Rochester against Elliot “Alu” Axelman. Schinella did not attempt to obtain a comment from Axelman or his attorney, which is standard practice in journalism. The article only told one side of the story and suffered from a number of inaccuracies. This will correct the record.
You thought police body cameras would help with police transparency? Well, think again. The motion cites RSA 105-D:2 XII, a terrible statute that appears to criminalize editing, copying, sharing, and even displaying any BWC footage. Though the section starts by saying it, “shall apply to law enforcement” agencies who use BWCs, later in part XII, it claims “all persons” are subject to the insane restrictions. It’s an obviously unconstitutional restriction on the people’s right to free speech and to be the free press. See Article 22 of the NH Constitution’s Bill of Rights:
Free speech and Liberty of the press are essential to the security of Freedom in a State: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.” Among other things, the statute also instructs police to not record interactions with other police employees, meaning any conversations between them is off-the-record.
Manchon received the footage from his discovery request as he prepares his defense on a ridiculous pullover by Hillsboro police. According to Manchon, he was pulled over wrongfully on an long-cancelled restraining order. HPD dispatch misinformed patrol officers that the order was still in place. It was originally put in place by his girlfriend over a non-violent misunderstanding and then it was removed in January after they were able to get back on good terms. They currently live happily together, I know that because she is my friend. She is pregnant with his child, hence, she was also with him in the car on August 12th, when HPD officers pulled them over:
Despite being informed by the couple that the restraining order was no longer in effect, the officers refused to research the restraining order to confirm the claim, instead arresting Manchon and charging him with “Disobeying an Officer”, then later changing that charge to “Resisting Detention”, by allegedly not getting out of the car fast enough for their liking. Later in the month, when visiting Hillsboro District Court for a right-to-record event, Manchon stopped by HPD headquarters and was arrested again for “Disorderly Conduct” and “Breach of Bail” for allegedly asking his viewers to contact Hillsboro Police at (603) 464-5512 to let them know how they feel about their corrupt police activity. It is not illegal to encourage people to redress their grievances with government thugs. In fact, Manchon and his attorney won against similarly frivolous charges in Claremont District Court last year. You can watch that full trial video here.
Hopefully the legislature will update this terrible statute to protect the people from criminal charges for sharing BWC videos and make BWC videos even more transparent and accessible without requiring criminal charges to get the videos in discovery, as right now the statute claims the videos are “for law enforcement purposes only” in part XIII. Obviously this restriction on access is also a violation of Article 8 of the NH Constitution’s Bill of Rights:
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.
According to Manchon, the Hillsboro District Court has scheduled a hearing on the requested “protective order” for Monday Sept 25th, at 11am.
Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest on this ridiculous case and please do share, copy, and display Manchon’s video so Hillsboro’s scum prosecutor can charge dozens of people for exercising their free speech. Speaking and sharing is a right, but if we don’t stand for our rights, we’ll surely lose them.
Keene activists are ready for a new wave of activism. Riley Blake, a new mover and Free Talk Live host, is hosting weekly 420 meet ups in downtown Keene. Press NH Now, a police accountability activist recently moved to Keene. Most recently, I took a parking ticket to court.
In this video you’ll see the whole process of how to do it yourself. I’ll explain it here, although this is not legal advice as i am not an attorney. First, you have to contest the ticket which is done at City Hall. Bring your ticket and your ID and registration if applicable. Then you’ll get served a court date. That does mean a psychopath with a shiny badge and a gun will likely come visit your home to give you the ticket so make sure you film your encounter and warn any roommates about what you’re doing. Then, you show up to the court date they give you. You don’t need to hire a lawyer for this and they won’t give you a public defender for a fifteen dollar ticket. You could tell the judge you don’t understand the nature or cause of the charge so you cannot plea guilty. You can use that as an opportunity to ask him questions about why you’re there that day. I asked the judge in my case if I am entitled to a fair trial. He said yes. I asked him if I could get a fair trial if there was a conflict of interest. He didn’t answer my question. He lied and said he couldn’t answer that yes-or-no question because he’d have to know what the conflict of interest would be. That’s non-responsive but I didn’t object since I didn’t want to piss him off that early. The obvious answer is that it wouldn’t be a fair trial if there was a conflict of interest in the case. Next, I asked the judge who he represents. He lied and said he doesn’t represent anyone. That stumped me because I knew the judge could say whatever he wanted but I hadn’t expected a human being to stand in front of me and say he represents no one, not even himself. That doesn’t even make sense but we are in legal land when we are in court. So up is down and down is up as Marc Stevens would say. I dropped my questioning and he asked if I would like to plea and I still said no. He gave me a trial date in July.
The prosecution didn’t end up giving me discovery until the day before trial. So the day before trial I went to the court house and the police station to file a Motion to Dismiss with the judge. You have to go to the police station and file it there to because they give it to the prosecution and you must notify them as well. The day of the trial, the judge granted a continuance so I would have more time but didn’t grant my motion to dismiss. So a trial was rescheduled for two weeks later. I was actually happy it didn’t get dropped because I wanted to cross examine Jane McDermott, the old lady thug who wrote the ticket and left it on the car I was using. The day of trial I was able to do that. I got to ask her a lot of fun questions including how much she gets paid to be at court. She was on her day off but being paid twenty-five dollars an hour to be there. So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Writing parking tickets is objectively not just something the City of Keene needs to do in order to maintain parking spaces. If it was, they wouldn’t spend all of this money paying the parking enforcer, the prosecutor and the judge to be in court in order to get fifteen dollars out of me. I believe the real reason is to create an atmosphere of fear and make sure people stay obedient. No private company maintaining these parking spaces would waste so much money. But they don’t care, it’s your tax dollars they’re wasting so why be responsible with it? They’ll get more out of you, right? If you don’t pay them they’ll come to your house and shoot your dog and bring you to prison.
I won the case because when Jason Short, the prosecutor, rested his case I motioned to dismiss on the basis that he never showed any evidence that I was the one who had been operating the vehicle or that I owned the car, since it’s registered under a church for which I am a minister. But even if you try this yourself and your car is registered under your name, if the prosecution rests without showing any evidence that you were the one operating the vehicle or that the meter was actually out of time, you could motion to dismiss. The judge may just not like you and deny your motion. He may order you to pay the fifteen dollars. If you really want to be a stellar activist you can tell him you’re not going to pay the fine. He will either make you do community service or put you in jail for one day. But, (and this is especially true if you are able to film the trial,) they don’t want to be seen throwing people in jail over fifteen dollars. If enough people contest their tickets, they will be so backed up there’s no way they would be able to continue this racket.
Please enjoy the video of the whole process. It’s fun to laugh at how ridiculous of a situation we are in while in court trying not to be harmed by these freaks who believe they are superhuman. They wear suits, badges and robes. They speak in ritualistic patterns. They will reprimand you for getting frustrated with someone who is lying under oath about you. They pretend it’s fair that all of them are on the same team against you. But that’s the “fair and just” legal system we are forced to not feel contempt for!
Brodie Deshaies at the hearing looking guilty while Carla Gericke calls him out for using scare tactics
Representative Brodie Deshaies from Wolfeboro, New Hampshire testified in front of the State-Federal Relations and Veteran Affairs Committee on January 20, 2022 concerning CACR 32. The legislation seeks to let the people of New Hampshire vote to amend the Constitution and become an independent nation, breaking ties with DC. He was the legislator asked by the committee chairman to do the bulk of the research before the hearing.
Looking closely at all the claims Deshaies made about the legality of this bill and the implications concerning lawmakers voting to recommend that the House pass it, it is hard to decide if he is ignorant and easily swayed by empire-loving “constitutional scholars” from DC or if he gave a speech full of lies to sway the vote. He used fear-mongering language directed at the committee, implying that they may be charged by Washington DC if they vote ‘Ought To Pass’ and supported the bill through the legal process. This article is a close-up look at his claims and will look at all the material he references to see if he is really making a constitutional argument against CACR 32.
Deshaies starts off with an acknowledgment of how the public perceives him. “There are some people who are pretty upset with me in the room,” he says. This is already very indicative of his character. He sent Elliot “Alu” Axelman (the editor-in-chief of LibertyBlock.com and the author of multiple books on secession) an email full of misinterpretations of the US and New Hampshire Constitutions a few weeks ago. When Alxelman politely asked if he wished to engage in a public debate on the topic, Deshaies cowered and declined. Without the opportunity to debate Deshaies, and with no legislator agreeing to debate him, Alu published his rebuttal to Deshaies’ anti-independence letter on his website. The article destroys the few arguments that the anti-freedom legislator sought to make in his letter. Instead, Deshaies went on to publish the exact same letter in an op-ed article on NHJournal.com. So, now we know he knows how people feel about his twisting of the facts, but he just goes on to ignore the people and doubles down on his way of thinking. We see from this very first sentence that he isn’t the sort of person who feels he should be in office doing what the people of New Hampshire want. He feels he’s in office to rule over the citizens of New Hampshire with an iron fist.
He goes on to say that after speaking to many “constitutional scholars” such as David Williams, author of “The Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment”, that he believes this committee was engaged in a “constitutional process” by voting Ought to Pass or Inexpedient to Legislate. Which means every vote cast is “aiding in the constitutional process,” and “approving it at each time along the way”.
Deshaies claims, “Every vote cast has a constitutional ramification judging by amendment fourteen of the US Constitution, section three. Some scholars would argue that this is rebelling, even if it’s peaceful. This very well could be an argument where voting for this, aiding and abetting in that process could very well be unconstitutional.”
So, there it is, folks. Deshaies spoke to a man who wrote a book arguing that the second amendment doesn’t really give all Americans the right to bear arms for advice on what the Constitution says. Then, he came up with a clever way to subtly scare the other members of the committee out of voting Ought to Pass on this bill. He used a mildly veiled threat of ‘insurrection’ and ‘rebellion’ to convince everyone on the committee to vote 21-0 against recommending the bill to be passed. Even the two committee members who told Axelman that they would support the legislation ultimately caved to the fear and voted to kill it. (more…)
