Yesterday I received mail addressed to Ean Garret from “9th Circuit – District Division – Manchester” court. The title of the piece read, The State of New Hampshire and Ean Garret. I took note of the fact that the State had deescalated its language in addressing me — their paperwork no longer read State of New Hampshire versus Myself. A two page letter, signed on a third page as So Ordered, Judge William H. Lyons, affirmed the State’s inability to prove that I had violated either of two charges under NH RSA 644:2 on June 4th, when I was swept up in Manchester PD’s Chalking 8 incident. I was taken into custody, according to arresting officer John Patti, for refusing to move from a public area of the sidewalk when ordered. The judge determined that there was no basis for the officer to make this arrest under RSA 644:2. A violation for impeding potential pedestrian traffic is not authorized under the already broad disorderly conduct statute. While specific city ordinance violations allow police to ticket those who impede pedestrians, the New Hampshire criminal code does not. The State made no attempt to prove that I was even in the crime scene which one of the charges alleges I had interfered with, as John Patti barely remembered any of his multiple interactions with me.
Despite my victory, one of the two people arrested simultaneously with myself, Pete Eyre, was found guilty at the non-criminal violation level of one of the two charges. Interestingly enough, the charge he was convicted on was not the reason for his arrest, but was attached later. John Patti, who ordered Pete’s arrest but was my arresting officer, arrested us for allegedly refusing an order regarding a city ordinance violation. Neither the order nor the basis of the order were substantiated in court, yet Pete was, retroactively, in a sense, found guilty of having been in the “crime scene” and having been ordered out of it. The disorderly conduct statute is so over broad that you are automatically guilty at the violation level if you have been given what is considered a “lawful order”. By refusing the order, you are then guilty at the criminal level. (more…)
Yesterday I was arraigned on three counts of felony wiretapping – click here to read about Pete’s and my year long fight on MA wiretapping charges. If convicted I face anywhere from 11.5 to 21 years in prison and up to $12,000 in fines. I say IF because the only way I’ll be convicted is if the state (the system itself) protects it’s own. The three people claiming that I wire tapped them are public officials, whom I recorded while acting in their “public” capacities, but we’ll get more into that as we approach trial. (more…)
As of Monday, December 12, it was confirmed that the court had received homework assignments from both parties in the case of State v. Garret Ean. At the end of the trial, the judge had asked for legal memos to support arguments made by both sides. Though I would have much preferred a ruling on the spot, in retrospect I am glad that the judge gave me a chance to formulate written arguments to demonstrate the State’s lack of a case. Just through questioning John Patti, I was only able to reveal so much about the case. The memo assignment enabled relevant details to be organized into a single presentation.
The prosecutor’s memo struck me with its unnecessary thickness. The memo was organized to the extent that it begins with legal arguments, but more than half of the final documents in the 79 page submission are completely irrelevant details obtained from house and senate hearings on the disorderly conduct statute in 2005. Much like the discovery packet, and a great portion of the Chalking 8 case itself, the State is throwing papers at the problem until one of them addresses the issue. With more Chalking 8 trials on the horizon, the State’s evidence will grow flimsier as the first not-guilty findings begin being issued. Rulings are expected to roll in around the new year.
See my two page memo striking to the root of the matter, and Attorney Greg Muller’s legalese composition below.
Pete Eyre, arrested at the same time as myself and who also has already had his trial, has uploaded both his own memo as well as Greg Muller’s 44 page memo from that case, which addresses different issues than were raised in mine.
We woke up today and learned thanks to a Union Leader article, that Ademo was indicted for three counts of felony wiretapping (each count threatens 5-7yrs in a cage). Since the article was posted online with only an excerpt, we scanned and posted it, and a related article for transparency.
The First Annual Shire Dance-Off will be this December 16th, 2011. Follow the front page of Fr33Agents.com to stay in the loop! More videos will be posted as the event draws near.
In 11-years in law enforcement, I have been in front of my share of judges as a representative of the state. In my time as someone working towards greater freedom with the wonderful activists of the Free State Project I have seen my share of the system crashing down on people who commit victimless acts that are either prohibited by criminal law or the nearly whimsical common-law contempt power of a judge.
With this experience I feel I am in a fairly credible position to say that the judicial professionalism I witnessed under the supervision of Judge Lyons during the trial of State v. Garret Ean on 11/18/11 in Manchester, NH is the example that all judges and court security officers (CSO)/bailiffs in New Hampshire should strive to reach.
Before the trial began, a gentleman who appeared to be the supervisory CSO addressed the audience and asked politely that people turn their phone ringers off. As I looked around I saw something that rude CSO’s would rarely see: activists complying with this polite and reasonable request. During the trial Judge Lyons was extremely insightful and even helpful to Garret with interpreting and explaining the various rules of the circuit court system. He also went well out of his way to either respect the rights of and/or ignore Pete Eyre’s wearing of a Cop Block baseball hat on the stand as he testified.
I hope other judges and CSO’s in this state learn to exhibit as much respect to pro se liberty activist type litigants as Judge Lyons and his subordinate CSO’s did.
Who knows, maybe even the Judicial Branch in New Hampshire is starting to figure out how to deal with liberty activists without the headache: show respect and ignore things that really don’t matter.
