Pay up, suckers!
According to the Sentinel, now the rate increase proposal is back and is already scheduled for a hearing at the FOP committee at city hall, this Thursday at 6:30pm! (Here’s a facebook event for it.)
Whether you are a downtown merchant or shopper, or just care about this issue, please come out Thursday night to oppose this.
Today is that special day of the year, where fiction becomes fact, and the truth becomes questionable. However, the following is a very real story first reported by Ballot Access News:
“the Republican National Committee asked a U.S. District Court to intervene in Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner, 1:14-cv-322. The issue in the lawsuit is the 2013 change to the New Hampshire election law that it made it illegal for a newly-qualifying party to circulate a party petition during an odd year.
The Republican National Committee’s motion says, “This lawsuit challenges a recent New Hampshire amendment to its election laws regarding ballot access by political organizations. The RNC proposes to intervene for the purpose of defending constitutionality of that amendment (sic)…The Republican Party has qualified for access to the New Hampshire general election ballot in 2016. Accordingly, it has a vital interest in New Hampshire’s election regulation in general and, specifically, the requirements for ballot access…the defendant (the Secretary of State) cannot adequately represent the RNC’s interests in this litigation.”
As far as is known, this is the first time any major party national committee has intervened in a constitutional ballot access lawsuit at a time remote from a presidential general election. The Democratic National Committee intervened in some lawsuits involving independent presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy in 1976, John B. Anderson in 1980, and Ralph Nader in 2004. But those interventions were on how certain ballot access laws should be interpreted, not over their constitutionality.”In the RNC’s “answer” to the LP’s complaint, is laughable. Almost everything is “The allegations in paragraph [x] consist of legal arguments to which no response is required. To the extent that paragraph [x] contains factual allegations, they are denied.” or “The RNC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a response to the allegations in [y].” In other words, the Republican Party is seeking to intervene in a ballot access law case, and they don’t know enough about the law or the fact to form opinions; or they simply claim every fact provided is false, without explanation!
Another interesting tidbit involving the case of Libertarian Party of New Hampshire v Gardner is a filing by the Secretary of State (Gardner) to be protected from depositions. That motion was denied!
Feeling safe yet?
This morning while I was enjoying some breakfast with fellow activists at the Keene State College dining commons, we noticed two men in military olive-green walking quickly across campus. One appeared to have a machine gun. Quickly we learned the school was on lockdown as rumor was that a man had used a gun in a “domestic incident” that happened somewhere off-campus.
Apparently the fact that someone used a gun somewhere in the vicinity of a college is now reason to shut down an entire campus. Perhaps that’s because weapons are banned from on campus, meaning that all law-abiding people are disarmed and would be easy targets for a gun-toting madman, who would not give a damn about the school’s gun restrictions.
New Hampshire is a very safe place because of its relative gun freedom compared to other states. It’s a shame that the good people on campus are not free to defend themselves. The law really needs to change on this matter, to restore the right to self-defense on school property. This police state stuff is getting ridiculous. Don’t the cops understand that this is New Hampshire and people have guns everywhere off campus?
The suspect, known as a local white supremacist scumbag.
Just because some local white supremacist loser fires a gun in a domestic dispute doesn’t mean the campus is in jeopardy. Even if it was in jeopardy, their current safety measures will most certainly result in bloodshed of campus staff, at minimum. Allow me to explain.
So, we finish up our meal and decide to exit the cafeteria, despite people telling us the school bureaucrats were standing at the doors, trying to discourage people from leaving the building. James Cleaveland, Conan, and I all left anyway. One lady got in front of me and pleaded with me to stay in the building. I told her no thanks, that I was fine, and walked out the door. As I was walking across campus, every single glass door to the campus buildings were being “guarded” by campus staff.
Put another way, a madman with a gun could easily slaughter multiple campus staff, who of course are completely unarmed and essentially standing in the open. It’s all security theater. Any determined killer would have no shortage of helpless targets on a college campus. The dining commons itself holds hundreds of students, who would be fish in a barrel if the would-be shooter merely stood outside the East side of the building, which is all-windows.
Given that murder wasn’t the suspect’s intentions (he is accused of firing a gun in the air, not directly at anyone), no one on campus was in danger – this time. Therefore, the cops get to look like heroes for tromping around campus with their weaponry, acting like they’re the thin blue line protecting the defenseless (because of the state’s rules) college students. Had this guy wanted to hurt college students, he’d have come on campus and done that right away, before police were called, and no one would have been able to stop him, unless of course they too were carrying illegally on campus. (more…)
The liberty movement in other states don’t get a fraction of the news coverage that Free State Project participants do. That’s because they aren’t anywhere near as relevant. The FSP is a major threat to the status quo, and the press its members receive is proof. Here’s the latest feature piece from the Concord Monitor focusing on the future of the FSP, thanks to the Monitor’s Nick Reed: (more…)
Thanks, TALKERS!
Thank you to all our listeners, AMPlifiers, radio and other affiliates, TALKERS Magazine, and our syndicate for helping make this possible.
P.S. The African satellite fundraiser is still going (through mid-May). Please help us get LRN.FM, which includes Free Talk Live and dozens of other great liberty-oriented shows, back on satellite over Africa!
Jennifer Schmidt
Jennifer Schmidt has been vindicated in Keene District Court as judge Edward J Burke has ruled there was not enough evidence to issue a permanent no-stalking order in the case brought against Schmidt by her down-the-street neighbor Anne Tallon.
Tallon had alleged that Schmidt was stalking her grandson, who is 10 years old. She claimed in her original court filing (which resulted in a temporary stalking order against Schmidt) that Schmidt had tried to corner her grandson in the supermarket, that while he was playing in the front yard she’d given him the finger, and that she’d allegedly flashed something that appeared to be a knife at him, among other things.
Despite Tallon claiming in her original filing that school superintendent Dan Black had banned Schmidt from the school property where both their kids attend, Black was not called as a witness. In fact, Tallon’s only witness was herself, and she admitted that she had basically been going on what her grandson had told her. With the exception of a mutual yelling incident between the women during an encounter at Hannaford, there appeared to be very little interaction between Tallon and Schmidt. Tallon admitted she had not personally witnessed any threatening or stalking behavior.
Schmidt’s case was much stronger. Multiple witnesses were called and when Tallon was being cross-examined she admitted that her grandson has behavioral issues. Schmidt’s case was that Tallon’s grandson has threatened to kill people and is generally a little hellion, so she has been concerned for her daughter’s safety.
Tallon’s case was weak without witnesses or any evidence whatsoever and she ultimately lost, with judge Burke taking the case under advisement then later issuing an order denying Tallon’s request for a permanent stalking order to be issued. As a result, there should no longer be a temporary stalking order against Schmidt, either.
Is Schmidt just an innocent mother protecting her child from a school bully? (Don’t expect the government schools to do that for you, despite forcing your kids to go there.) Or did Schmidt intimidate Tallon’s grandson when no one was watching? No one will ever know for sure except her and him. We do know that Schmidt is the wife of the very angry Matthew “Boston Strong” Schmidt, who recently threatened on video to make some neighborhood childrens’ lives a “living nightmare” and who regularly removes downtown chalkings (including those created by children) in Central Square. Both Schmidts are members of a local group of Free Keene haters.
Here’s full video of the hearing from earlier this week:
Recent Forum Posts
