According to police, the then-unknown motorcycle operator ditched the bike and ran into the woods before police were able to catch up. Fortunately for the cops, a local snitch, Alexander Short – the owner of Short’s Detailing at 58 Forest Ave in Swanzey – approached them and told officers he knew who the operator of the motorcycle was, as the two had been hanging out in the Target parking lot the same night. The snitch placed a phone call to Mikey’s cell phone and officers were then able to locate and take him into custody, ultimately returning him home to his parents’ house.
Months later, Mikey was subsequently charged with two misdemeanor counts: “disobeying an officer” and “operating without valid license”. The first count was charged as “class A”, which could result in up to a year in jail and the second count charged as “class B” which could be a large fine. The Keene Police prosecutor offered a plea deal which would have dropped the class A charge in return for his guilty plea on the class B with the punishment being a 30 day loss of license and $620 fine plus $720 suspended on condition of good behavior. Now-seventeen-year-old Mikey heroically refused the plea deal and took the charges to trial earlier this month:
After the state presented its case, Keene district court judge Patrick W Ryan took the case “under advisement” and complimented Mikey, telling him, “you did a good job”. It was Mikey’s first time in court and he appeared pro-se, defending himself without the help of an attorney.
Normally, when a robed man takes a case under advisement it is a good sign that the verdict will not be “guilty”, because usually they are hesitant to deliver a not-guilty verdict in front of an audience and cameras. Judges are likely to issue more favorable verdicts when the cameras are off and no one is around, and that is exactly what happened in this case. Actually, the charges were “dismissed” according to the case file, which means Mikey wasn’t found “not guilty”. Dismissing charges after the trial has finished is an unusual result, but it’s still a solid win for the teenage Cop Block activist.
Observers reported that the snitch Alexander Short laughed and told Mikey outside of the courtroom to “have fun in jail”. Who is laughing now? One benefit of taking charges to trial is the police have to put snitches – or any undercover agents – on the witness stand to make their case, whereas if the defendant takes a plea deal the snitch is protected from public view. So now everyone knows that Alexander Short of Swanzey New Hampshire is happy to throw his friends under the bus and rat them out to the police for victimless crimes.
This weekend, the Free State Project celebrated “Porcupine Day”, the annual commemoration of the FSP reaching its goal of 20,000 liberty activists pledged to move to New Hampshire. That goal was reached on February 5th, 2016, making this the sixth annual Porcupine Day. Approximately 140 people packed Murphy’s Taproom in Bedford last night to celebrate and “Queen Quill” Carla Gericke and Odysee co-founder Jeremy Kauffman spoke. Here are both of their speeches:
“This bill establishes the crime of subversion of the legislative process-treason for any act to subvert the legislative process based on a false claim of emergency caused by COVID-19.”
Politicians and bureaucrats that violate our medical freedom by enforcing unconstitutional and unlawful mandates should go to prison. The legislative process is sacred. President Joe Biden is not a king, and the executive department cannot subvert the legislative process when it is convenient. It is up to individual state legislatures and the United States congress to enact legislation that impacts the citizens…It is well within the authority of the general court to protect its constituents from overreach of federal executive power. This bill aims to check the power of the federal government, and to defend the people of our state from unconstitutional executive actions and decrees that encroach on their ability to conduct business freely. This bill protects the right of private businesses to make their own decisions in what they require of their employees, and frees them from being shackled by executive overreach.” – Rep. Tim Baxter, HB 1027 public hearing, 1/19/2022 – watch here
Arguments Presented at the Public Hearing
Rep. Baxter’s arguments focused on how covid-19 mandates in New Hampshire have affected employers/employees negatively by forcing them into catch-22 situations. One example was a mother in tears because she didn’t agree with the vaccine mandate, but would lose her job if she didn’t comply. Rep. Baxter argued that businesses should be in charge of setting their own parameters, without government intrusion or intervention whatsoever.
Rep. Yokela’s arguments focused on how using covid-19 as the basis for “emergency powers” is an abuse of the legislative system. Over two years into the pandemic, any “emergency powers” enacted are unnecessary, as the entire world is well aware of the situation. Employers do not need hand-holding, and employees should not be forced into unconstitutional positions by the government. Rep. Yokela argued that legislatures have enough time, at this late stage, to follow the legitimate legislative path instead of enacting laws by executive decree. If they do not follow the proper path, it should be considered an act of treason.
I became actively involved in this process in the end of 2021, beginning of 2022, and I was actually appalled with the way people are being discriminated against because of this pandemic. Not only in our communities, but right here in our legislative body. This bill would hold those people responsible and accountable at every level. It needs to be done. I was in a Senate hearing yesterday and one of the senators who spoke…said the bottom line is that we don’t want to approve this because we want everyone vaccinated. That’s not appropriate. That is not appropriate for someone to take that kind of a stand. He’s representing the people of New Hampshire. Not everyone in New Hampshire wants this vaccine. Not everyone in New Hampshire believes in this vaccine. Not everyone in New Hampshire trusts our federal government, or even our state government at this point. I’m here today to support this bill; it’s a good start.” – Russan Chester (NH citizen), HB 1027 public hearing, 1/19/2022 – watch here
New Hampshire constitutional amendment concurrent resolution (CACR27), introduced January 5, 2022, would give “we the people” of NH the ability to boot out the corrupt and tyrannical judges that permeate the current landscape.
All state court judges shall be subject to recall and removal by petition and vote of registered voters pursuant to provisions established by the legislature.” – CACR27 summary
Introduced by Rep. Norm Silber (R), Rep. Michael Sylvia (R), Rep. William Foster (R), and others, a public hearing for the amendment took place January 12, 2022. Rep. Silber began the hearing by stating that many of his constituents (Gilford/Meredith) had come to him with “horror story complaints about their treatment by judicial officers in the court system in the state, most of whom are complaining about how they’re treated in family court. Some dealing with child custody, child removals, DCYF.” Current NH law only allows the removal of a judge through the process of impeachment.
The public hearing for CACR27 lasted about 40 minutes and ended with NH criminal defense attorney Richard Guerriero saying, “I think the greater issue at hand is a greater scrutiny of the courts…This would give the people a path to take should they not be able to inspire their representatives to protect them from government.”
It Seems Obvious This Should Be a Law
I, you, and everyone we know probably knows at least one person who’s gone through the court system only to find it, and the judge, totally corrupt. Obviously when it comes to child custody and child removal from a family, if a corrupt judge is installed entire generations could be destroyed. But really, all corrupt judges ruin lives, don’t they?
It seems obvious this constitutional amendment should be law. Doesn’t it? Why the hell isn’t it? This is New Hampshire! And while we’re at it, let’s vote out all the bad cops, too. It would really put the “public” back into the “servants,” don’tcha think? Sound like a plan? Let’s see what happens with this!
Watch the Public Hearing for CACR27: (4:59:23 – 5:38:00)
On January 27, 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, Chief Judge Jeffrey Howard, ruled in “US Dep’t of Justice v. Jonas, No. 19-1243,” that the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) can “legally” access New Hampshire’s prescription drug database via an administrative subpoena, not a warrant. This is despite New Hampshire and United States laws to the contrary.
While 48 states have submitted to maintaining a networked prescription database (Prescription Drug Monitoring Program / PDMP), most people would argue that their personal medical and prescription records are protected by the 4th amendment (“no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”) Personal healthcare and medical information is generally protected under doctor-patient confidentiality laws and is regarded as almost sacrosanct in the healthcare world (think HIPAA.) In this case, confidentiality was further supported by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.
Overwhelming Support From the Liberty Community
Michelle Ricco Jonas, manager of the New Hampshire PDMP in 2018, refused the DEA’s request to fork over 2.5 years’ worth of prescription data of a “person of interest.” After being subpoenaed she argued that the records belong to the state, not an individual person. Since March 12, 2019, when the notice of appeal was docketed, Michelle Jonas and New Hampshire state received an outpouring of support from the ACLU of California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island – in other words, all the districts represented by the 1st Circuit Court.
Over the past two grueling years of appeal, the ACLU supported Jonas, and questioned whether issuing a subpoena to a state employee is within the bounds of the district court. They argued that medical records, for all intents and purposes, are considered private information. While the DEA has the ability to subpoena an individual, the ACLU asked if that gave them the right to subpoena a representative, or employee, of the state. They also argued that the 4th Amendment requires law enforcement “to obtain a warrant based on probable cause only to secure records over which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.” The ACLU argued that medical records warrant an expectation of privacy.
The prescription records at issue in this case reveal intimate, private, and potentially stigmatizing details about patients’ health, including details of those patients’ underlying medical conditions. For that reason, as with other medical records, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in them.” – Summary of Argument, US Dep’t of Justice v. Jonas, No. 19-1243
This is an e-mail I sent to NH state reps around Jan 26, 2022.
—–
RepFolk: Here are some reasons you should feel “Constitutionally comfortable” voting for CACR 32…the right of the people to vote on whether we keep being ruled by an empire that starts a new war at our expense every three years or so.
What’s nice about the U.S. Constitution is that you generally don’t have to be a “Constitutional scholar” to understand it.
1) The Tenth Amendment makes the U.S. Constitution innocent of banning independence, until proven guilty. It reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” By default, “the powers,” thus includes the power of states and/or their voters to divorce D.C. In order for the U.S. to lawfully wield a power preventing that, such power would have to be “delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” Where does that Constitution clearly grant such power to D.C.? Why are the “anti-independence” Constitutional passages cited so unclear on this question when compared to the clarity of “The Tenth?”
2) Even if we were to assume, for the sake of discussion, that the Constitutional arguments against independence were valid…that leaves a different problem for Remainers. No one could credibly argue that the U.S. government has complied with its Constitution…not even during the last two hours, let alone the last two centuries. Have they voided their contract, perhaps millions of times? If they are not required to follow their Constitution, why are we?
3) If one could argue that the U.S. Constitution forbids the public from voting on independence this year, one could just as easily argue that the pre-existing NH Constitution *demands* it this year. Article 10 reads: “…whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government.” Has Washington endangered – or not endangered – “public liberty?” Are you currently able to “redress” your grievances with D.C.?
4) You face, perhaps for the first time, legislation which would actually end the central government’s practice of running employment bans and overseas TORTURE CHAMBERS* at NH taxpayer expense. Why have some of your House colleagues apparently picked *this* moment to begin pretending they follow either Constitution?
Dave Ridley NHexit.com “Independence without enmity”
Rep. Leah Cushman presents HB 1022 at the public hearing on 1/18/22
On January 12, 2022, Rep. Leah Cushman (R – NH) introduced New Hampshire HB 1022: an act permitting pharmacists to dispense the drug ivermectin by means of a standing order entered into by licensed healthcare professionals. The general argument is that many healthcare workers are unable to prescribe ivermectin, either because of hospital politics or outside pressures. This bill would override the need for a prescription for ivermectin, allowing everyone in New Hampshire to pick it up over-the-counter.
A public hearing for this bill took place on January 18, 2022. Rep. Cushman, House committee (Health, Human Services, & Elderly Affairs) members, doctors, and others took part in a lively discussion that spanned over two hours. The overall consensus appeared to be in favor of the bill, with a few speakers pleading that those who cannot (or do not) get the covid-19 vaccine need another readily-available, tried, and tested alternative.
The Benefits of Ivermectin Are Well Established
The only medicine for infectious diseases to win the Nobel Prize has recently been smeared in the mainstream media. Surprised? There are innumerable studies that have overwhelmingly shown the benefits of this drug to combat all types of disease. The difference is that now the media has portrayed it as livestock medicine, and nobody can seem to counteract the bad press–not even Joe Rogan.
However, most of those in attendance, including multiple committee members, fully supported pushing this bill further. Even those who believe that vaccines are the best option had to admit that withholding medicine to those who cannot or do not get the vaccine doesn’t make sense. In fact, people who have received the vaccine can benefit from ivermectin as well.
Dr. Paul Marik Was in Attendance
One speaker of note was Dr. Paul Marik, who traveled to the public hearing for NH HB 1022 all the way from Virginia.
