Bureaucrats love to try to throw their weight around to try to get you to do what they say. Some really seem to get off on controlling others. In this case, the clerk inside the courtroom at Portsmouth district court lied to me this morning, claiming I was not allowed to record the judge in court.
This despite having a media registration with the NH Supreme Court and countless hours under my belt recording in various courts around New Hampshire.
However, this was my first time in Portsmouth’s court and the well-fed bureaucrat thought she’d be able to intimidate me. I stood my ground, and sure enough when judge Gardner entered the room she said nothing to me or Derrick J Freeman or David Jurist, all of whom were armed with cameras in the courtroom. (more…)
David Jurist moved to Keene from Arkansas back in September and a month later was already in handcuffs in Hillsborough, NH for the dastardly crime of driving safely without a government permission slip. After receiving personal recognizance bail, he was released and other Keene activists made the trip to Hillsborough to pick him and his car up.
David is a freedom to travel activist and has studied many unusual courtroom approaches. For years I’ve encouraged people who want to try unique approaches to court cases to move to the Keene area so we can document them on video. (Many states do not allow recording in court, so it’s impossible for the court theorists to prove their techniques actually work.) So, I was excited to see him question the judge Edward B. Tenney during his arraignment this week at Hillsborough District Court.
Watch as the city’s private attorneys try their best to get the court to approve of their request for an unconstitutional injunction that would infringe on the free speech rights of the “Robin Hooders“, the activists who’ve made international headlines after the city filed suit against us for filling expired parking meters and calling out the parking enforcers for the evil they commit on a daily basis.
The court’s justices, who normally give each side a good grilling in these hearings, seem to only give the city’s attorney a hard time. Free speech attorney Jon Meyer, who has taken the case pro-bono says he’s “cautiously optimistic”. One should not get too sure of one’s position with the court, so we’ll know likely within six months how they have decided on what should be the final appearance in a New Hampshire court.
If they lose, will the City of Keene spend tens-of-thousands more taxpayer dollars to appeal to the federal courts to stop an activity that has basically tapered off on its own? (The city’s own updated suit has dropped four of the six original respondents as they don’t even live in town anymore.) The city gang is notoriously bad at learning their lesson, so it wouldn’t surprise me.
If you enjoy my posts, please sign up for a free account at Steemit, follow my posts there, and vote them up. If you do that, I’ll actually get paid in cryptocurrency for your vote-ups, thank you!
This week, newer mover-to-Keene Steven Johnson tried his hand at a speeding ticket trial against newer Keene cop Luke Antin, who appears to be a decent guy. Steven heroically refused the plea deal and appeared for trial before judge Edward J Burke, in Keene District Court… but not really.
See, Keene District Court normally occurs in Cheshire County courthouse’s courtroom one. At 8:30 in the morning on November 7th, as usual, dozens of people had filed obediently into courtroom one, awaiting Burke’s arrival. Little did they know, however, that Burke had appeared in the smaller, upstairs courtroom three at 8:30am sharp.
This is a smart move – it prevents the average court attendee from seeing someone actually take a speeding charge to trial. (Based on the large number of youtube views on speeding ticket trials – people are very interested in this subject.) Sure, we give the court victims fliers to encourage them to not take a plea deal, but it’s another matter entirely for them to witness someone actually doing it.
So, courtroom three contained four people: Burke, Steven, KPD officer Luke Antin, and the cameraman – me. Thankfully, we can record the court proceedings in New Hampshire, so the trial can be seen by the world. Here’s the video:
On Friday October 14, in Laconia district court, Judge Carroll heard the Motion to Dismiss for the Free the Nipple case. This case is unusual, in that I am thoroughly convinced that everyone in that room believed they were right, and was not engaging in rationalization to so believe.
I was able to get statements from two of the ladies who were being aggressed against by the State:
“My biggest problem with today’s hearing is the prosecutor kept ignoring the gender/sex discrimination. Cities are allowed to make rules, they just can’t make rules that only apply to women, or black people, or gay people, or Muslim.” – Kia
“How you choose to wear your body is a body rights and property issue. If you don’t own your body what do you own? It’s just as degrading to ask a woman to put a shirt on as it is to ask her to take it off. Nudity is a natural spiritual choice; I personally stand before my creator unashamed as his artwork, and the same should apply to a woman who chooses to wear a hijab.” – Ginger
The attorney for the protestors argued that the Laconia ordinance prohibiting female toplessness was unconstitutional on the grounds that it discriminates against women and is not authorized by the New Hampshire Constitution. New Hampshire is not a home rule state, which means that towns and other subdivisions of the State may only pass laws on matters which they are authorized by the New Hampshire legislature. The State of New Hampshire has not authorized its subdivisions to legislate on the topic of nudity or toplessness. (more…)
In a 3 to 1 vote, the Planning, Licenses, and Development committee passed a resolution to prohibit the posting of political advertising on city property and public rights-of-way. The resolution goes to full council on the 20th.
To many, the the political signage around town can be messy at times, especially during presidential years, but this resolution is a clear violation of our freedom of speech rights and also conflicts with current state statute that protects placing political signs on public property.
As it stands, RSA 31:41-c authorizes municipalities to create bylaws regulating electioneering. But state statute RSA 664:17 protects the placement of political signs on public rights-of-way, as long as it doesn’t obstruct the safe flow of traffic.
This comes right on the heels of a ridiculous new amendment to RSA 659:43 that now prohibits voters from entering the polling place wearing campaign related clothing. Clearly some of our state reps have entirely too much time on their hands.
Passing this new ordinance will undoubtedly open up lawsuits against the city which they will likely lose. The courts do routinely recognize extra protections for political speech. That means “we” the taxpayers will be picking up the tab as usual for mistakes made by the city. Please contact your city councilors and urge them to vote against this.
