During the trial of the Trespassive Three who were charged with the dastardly crime of Criminal Trespass for refusing to end a protest at the appointed hour, the State and it’s minions made some pretty ludicrous statements. Many of them were so over the top that they require no rebuttal, simply to be pointed out and laughed at. For instance; if the jury finds these three not guilty, anarchy will reign supreme, the parks will turn into campgrounds and the grass and trees in the parks will die. There were however a few statements that I believe warrant a closer examination.
As you know if you’ve been reading here for a while, I’ve been facing “disorderly conduct” charges in Palmer, MA for recording video in a town hall. Back in December, they dropped the misdemeanor charge and offered a deal on the remaining town ordinance violation. The ACLU of MA has come on board to assist and now they are changing the charge from a criminal to civil. That means the potential penalty drops from several hundred dollars to something like $25.
ACLU attorney Shawn Allyn will be filing a motion to dismiss on 1st amendment grounds and a hearing will happen regarding the motion on 5/22 at 2pm at Palmer district court. You are welcome to come watch!
On March 21, the two-day trial began in the case of State v Edwards, Grunewald & Richards. The State claims the 3 defendants committed the crime of criminal trespass in a public park on the night of October 19, 2011.
The State began their case by saying “this case is about choices” and said the defendants had 3 choices:
1) remain in the park until 11pm then leave
2) stay in the park past 11pm, receive a citation, then leave the park
3) stay in the park past 11pm, receive a citation, remain then get arrested. (more…)
At just about noon today, a Hillsborough County superior court jury returned from approximately an hour of deliberation with a guilty finding against three Occupy New Hampshire activists who did not voluntarily retrieve a citation and were removed via arrest from the temporary intentional community established in Veterans’ Park in Manchester’s downtown. The three were sentenced to ten days of incarceration at the infamous Valley Street jail, which is deferred on the condition that each completes 90 hours of community service and observes one year of good behavior. One occupier who was cited for curfew violation, but did not receive misdemeanor trespassing charges during the eviction responded,
Dislike, but unshocked. We were essentially asking the jury to find you not guilty on constitutional grounds. They are not constitutional law experts, this is an issue for the supreme court, and hopefully we get to challenge it there… (more…)
Manchester occupiers are on trial for criminal trespass today in superior court. Video is being recorded and updates are being posted on the Free Talk Live Facebook page. Here’s the twitter feed for those updates:
I am the Owner and Managing Editor of Free Press Publications which is a Registered News Organization with the SJC.
On the morning of March 20, I went to the Palmer District Court to attend and cover a hearing in the case of State v Ian Freeman. Upon arrival, I was told that I could not bring my camera & tripod, to which I responded, “I’m media, yes, I can,” and pulled out the form that was sent to me via email from Erika Gully-Santiago (Deputy Public Information Officer).
The bailiff said that since I did not present him “the original” (something I don’t have, as it was sent electronically) that he would need to have a judge verify the form, and that I would need to wait outside of the building.
After waiting for nearly 45 minutes, I was told I would need to fill out a motion which the judge would need to approve before I would be allowed through the security checkpoint; this time I was allowed to stand between the two sets of doors instead of waiting outside. In total it was almost 1 hour from the time I arrived at the Palmer District Court and the time I was allowed through security.
I have a few questions that I would like answered:
Is this the normal procedure for ALL members of the media, or is this treatment reserved for people who are not members of the big media companies?
As a Registered News Organization, why was I required to fill out a motion to film?
Is a motion required each time I wish to film a trial?
If a motion IS required each time I wish to film a trial, why must I be registered with the SJC?
If a motion is NOT required each time I wish to film a trial, why was one required today?
I anticipate your response with answers to each of the questions I’ve asked.
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
