In a six page decision issued this week, NH Hillsborough superior court judge Gillian L. Abramson dismissed the misdemeanor wiretapping charge against Alfredo Valentin – affirming the right to record police in public includes secret recordings. The judge cites both the Glik and Gericke cases which were important federal cases affirming the right to record police in public. The state argued in this case, that since the recording was secret, the right to record doesn’t apply in NH, where the wiretapping statute is ridiculously oppressive. The judge smacked that claim down:
the Court finds that the First Amendment protects secretly filming police in public, for the same reasons that the First Amendment generally protects filming police. The public has the right to gather and disseminate information about the police.
Free State Project early mover and attorney Brandon Ross is Valentin’s lawyer (Ross has previously beaten wiretapping charges at the NH supreme court.) and had this to say, in an exclusive interview for Free Keene, about the judge’s decision: “By charging him with a felony, the state destroyed my client’s career–and made things much worse with this wild goose chase prosecution. I’m glad the court wasn’t fooled by the state’s manifestly incorrect representations about the law. I look forward to him getting his day in federal court.”
Attorney Brandon Ross
Ross also excoriated the NH legislature for their inaction on fixing the horrible wiretapping statutes, saying, “This never needed to happen. Numerous bills have been brought to the legislature to fix this. Each time, the legislature has failed to act to bring simple, necessary clarity to a law which police are continually abusing. But the NH chiefs of police scare them each time, and nothing happens. The resulting litigation from that spineless failure to act, does nothing but inconvenience citizens and cost taxpayers.”
You can read the full six-page order here. Will the state attorney general’s office appeal to the NH supreme court and risk making this decision apply to the entire state? Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest.
Today in Concord, ministers and members from Church of the Sword (COTS), gathered at the NH supreme court for oral arguments in their appeal of the town of Westmoreland denying their request for tax exempt status. Ministers from the Shire Free Church were there in support. The question before the court was whether the Cheshire superior court should have thrown out the case in a decision earlier this year, which affirmed the town’s opinion that the COTS is not a church, claiming it’s not religious since the church doesn’t have a belief in god.
However, as COTS’ attorney Dan Hynes pointed out, and COTS ministers argue, there are traditional, long-running churches do not have a god, such as the Buddhists, Taoists, and many Unitarian Universalists.
Given the NH supremes are only judging whether the lower court erred in tossing the case, don’t expect their decision to include an opinion on whether or not COTS is a church. A decision in COTS’ favor would simply mean the lower court should not have dismissed the case, and that the case should move ahead (likely to jury trial) at the superior court.
Here’s the full hearing, plus short interviews with COTS founder Kirk McNeil and COTS attorney Dan Hynes:
A particularly ridiculous portion is where the attorney for Westmoreland argues that anarchists can’t have a religion. Don’t miss it!
This week’s AKPF #1 installment features no content of particular offense to the audiences of You Tube, enabling it to be viewed by a much wider demographic. Enjoy special episode Trielium, featuring footage captured in Keene on October 02, 2015.
After the NH supreme court ruled mostly in Robin Hooders’ favor, they sent the injunction request by the “City of Keene” gang back to the Cheshire superior court for it to be considered separately from their failed demand for financial damages.
Hence, we were back in court yesterday for round two of the “evidentiary hearing” (the original was three days long in 2013). The evidentiary hearing looks and feels like a trial, but actually isn’t. We’ve never even gotten to the trial, since the judge dismissed the city of Keene’s case before that could happen.
Once again, Robin Hooders were represented by top-tier free speech attorney Jon Meyer, and he did a spectacular job.
Thankfully, the hearing only lasted one day, and boy are there some amazing moments captured on video. Don’t miss when Jane claims Garret is “taunting” her no matter what words come out of his mouth, even if he were to talk to her about the weather! No kidding – she really says that.
The icing on the cake had to be both Jane and Linda expressing having “anxiety” (Jane even likens her experience to PTSD) due to not knowing when Robin Hooders were going to pop up. Hey Jane and Linda, how do you think the innocent people that park downtown feel? They never know when the parking enforcers will pop up and ruin their day with a ticket.
Now the case is again in the hands of judge John C Kissinger. He ruled correctly the first time around but this injunction portion of the case was remanded back to him by the NH supreme court on a technicality. Did the parking agents’ sob story convince him to issue an unconstitutional injunction against Robin Hooders? Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest in this ongoing saga!
The Robin Hood court hearings were back in Cheshire superior court today. Thanks to Darryl W Perry for live tweeting the hearing. Here are his tweets in reverse chronological order:
@DarrylWPerry 2h2 hours ago
Correction: there is no hearing scheduled for the 19th #RobinHoodTrial
@DarrylWPerry 2h2 hours ago
Court is over #RobinHoodTrial
@DarrylWPerry 2h2 hours ago
Judge asks both sides to address floating buffer zones in their memoranda #RobinHoodTrial
@DarrylWPerry 2h2 hours ago
Discussing procedure from here. Both sides to file legal memos, there is a hearing tentatively scheduled for Oct 19 #RobinHoodTrial (more…)
I got a sad letter from my attorney this week. He informed me that the Supreme Court of NH upheld the lower court’s decision to deny my application for a license to carry a handgun discreetly. You can read the decision here:
