Gangsters in Blue

American democracy is on life support as the Super Police state adds another law (Bill H.R. 347 – ‘Trespass Bill”) that attacks your First Amendment right to protest.

The line that separates democracy versus Police state seems to be invisible and unnoticed by most people and even mainstream media that totally fail to report on the repercussions caused by these undemocratic laws.

The problem with main stream Media, is that they (knowingly and at times unknowingly) practice “self censorship” and forget their ever so important role as one of the very important pillars of democracy.

Article 19 of the UN’s Universal Declaration Of Human Rights does say we all have the right to receive information which the US has signed. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19

* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, “receive” and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

There is no available information in the mainstream media on about what are some of the potential consequences if undemocratic laws such as these are enacted to attack your First Amendment Right to protest.

As politicians (Republicans & Democrats) become more and more proactive to circumvent our constitutional Rights by creating crafty sneaky undemocratic laws such as Indefinite Military Detention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012 that has given the Military, Police and other LEOs, powers to potentially arrest you and not charge you with anything, and to then indefinitely jail you without ever having to give you an opportunity to go to trial or go before a judge, if they decide you are a suspicious terrorist without having to provide proof for.

When people do finally realize that we truly live in a “Super Police state”, they are genuinely very surprised at why they have not ever noticed it before.

This seems the norm when approx 98% of citizens do not know that there exists all over America a highly secret 4rth branch level of government in the US that is called (Top Secret America).

Washington Post was one of the very rare mainstream media to do a exceptional investigation on the post 9/11 growth of the United States Intelligence Community that published in The Washington Post on July 19, 2010, by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Dana Priest and William Arkin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Secret_America

Link to Washington Post’s site on the topic: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

Frontline’s Short Trailer on Top Secret America

Full Video: Frontline’s 51 minute documentary show on  Top Secret America

There is no doubt that America is growing stronger and stronger as a Super Police state. Here below is an article on the new H.R. 347 – ‘Trespass Bill” that will attack your First Amendment right to protest.

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal
Published: 29 February, 2012, 02:13 http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.

Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.

And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?

On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.

United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.”

“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.

Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.

Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.

- Accountability

Accountability submitted this post using CopBlock.org’s submission tab. Click here and share your thoughts, beliefs and encounters with police today.

American Democracy On Life Support is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

This post was originally published at Technically, That’s Illegal.

My recent career as a mother has really changed my opinions about a lot of things.  I am determined not to raise my kids in a paranoid manner.  I cringed at my youngest today.  He was crawling around the library carrying pieces of their puzzles in his mouth.  Of course, this is normal behavior for a 9-month old child, which is precisely why I am sure that approximately 2.3 million other infants have done the same thing.  I have to tell myself that I’m fairly certain that none of those infants have life-threatening contagious diseases that I need to worry about.  I just let him go about his business as a baby.  He’s still alive at this moment…some four hours later.  Some people don’t even go to the library because they fear public germs.

Did you know that this fear of germs is more prevalent in the United States than other countries?  I haven’t done extensive research, but I do know that mysophobia is common in America.  I had some friends a few years ago who moved to the U.S. on student visas.  They told me that the people who greeted them as they entered the United States for the first time would shake their hands, say, “Welcome to the United States,” and then wash with hand sanitizer.  How much snobbier does it get?  If that’s the message us Americans send to others — that they are probably diseased and we’re not — why bother shaking their hands at all?

Anyway, I am determined to teach my kids about acceptable and unacceptable forms of communication and touch so that they will feel comfortable talking to most strangers.  If I am successful, they will know how to handle the unlikely event that someone does mean to do them harm (rather than avoiding all “strangers”).  This is the philosophy espoused by Free Range Kids, and I am indebted to them for their continual coverage and encouragement on these issues.

So, what about cops?  I was raised with Sesame Street.  They showed me “the people in my neighborhood,” one of them being a friendly police officer.  The meme then and now is that we should trust the police, especially in the case of emergencies.   Here you can see Sesame Street promoting the idea that a police officer could help a young child find their way home.  Unfortunately, in this day and age, the police officer would probably dream up some charge for the mother or father that happened to somehow lose track of their kid.  If you don’t believe me, check out this article about a woman facing child endangerment charges for making her son walk to school.  Or, this one about a guy who was also charged with child endangerment for riding with his kids on his bike down a one way street (for a very short distance).  Then, there’s this one the parent who was reported to CPS for allowing her child to ride her bike to school.  These cases occur all the time.  What was normal (yet still unnerving) in the late 1970s (a child getting lost), is now grounds for criminal charges.

So, how to I reconcile my increasing distrust of the police with my desire to raise my kids not to be paranoid and worried all of the time?  I still don’t have an answer for this. My kids are still quite young.  I’m hoping my mind comes up with a solution to this problem as time goes on.  I assume my stance will generally be to ignore the police as much as possible.  But, that’s becoming very hard to do with a 2-year old who is obsessed with their cars, lights, and sirens.  Welcome to cognitive dissonance.

The Best Way to Teach Kids About Police? is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Published almost four years ago, The Myth of the ‘Rule of Law’ by Brainpolice is a damn solid write-up. That said, it’s almost certain that some readers may take issue with the article’s stated premise: there is NO ‘rule of law.’ But why?

Is Brainpolice wrong? Or might some readers unthinkingly default to a support-the-current-system stance based on their lifetime of pro-State rhetoric peddled in public schools, via the lamestream media, and from talking heads?

One point of clarification that’s more semantics than divergence is Brainpolice’s use of the word “law” – I’d use “legislation” to refer to anything man-made and “law” to refer to natural law, common law, or god’s law (take your pick, based on your preference). After all, those of us who point-out the bad actions of individuals wearing badges often are told “If you don’t agree with it change the law.” It’s not the law I seek to change (after all, I agree with the law, that I shouldn’t initiate force) but legislation. Why should you have a duty to pay attention to and abide by what some strangers write, especially as you’ve never signed or verbalized support of such dictates.

Of course we all want to live in peaceful, prosperous society where individual rights are safeguarded, but how is that best achieved? Through a top-down, centralized State, who’s agents create and interpret (allowing for double-standards) the rules or through an organic, bottom-up process? Children know it’s not right to steal, lie or hit, do we really need some strangers telling us how to behave?

————————————————————–

The theory of a republic is essentially that, in contrast to democracy in which there is tyranny of the majority and in contrast to monarchy in which there is the rule of a single man or oligarchy, the law itself is what rules rather than men. In essence, a republic is supposed to be a model for government that avoids being both both democracy and monarchy, and allegedly replaces the administration of men over men with the administration of the law itself over men. In a republic, the law is supposed to restrain the lay public from creating tyranny of the majority (I.E. a democracy) and simultaneously restrain the institutional agents of the state from functioning as an elite of rulers imposing their will on the lay public (I.E. an oligarchy).

But a basic understanding of how human beings work and a rational analysis of how the state functions as an institution, including so-called republics, renders this theory of government as a rather blatant absurdity. How can a law be self-enforcing? By definition, a governmental law is drafted by men and must be enforced by men. No political system can escape the rule of men, for all political systems are created and run by men. At the same time, no political system is the result of the decisions of everyone within a society, for at a fundamental level all political systems are oligarchies in which a small percentage of the overall population are those with direct control over the state apparatus, those who actually make and enforce the laws.

The absurdity of the notion that a piece of paper with words on it in and of itself will fatalistically or pre-emptively stop human beings (including those within the state apparatus itself) from engaging in certain actions should be rather obvious. In terms of the lay public, they may theoretically engage in such actions anyways and their actions may be rather unpredictable. A piece of paper isn’t going to restrain a mob. And in terms of those within the state apparatus themselves, they have most leeway of all in the matter, for it is ultimately they who make the laws and may choose to enforce or not enforce them. Since they are not really bound by any higher external 3rd party institution, they may theoretically function in a lawless manner. The law maker is effectively and seemingly paradoxically “above the law”. For since they have a monopoly on law, they may theoretically interpret it and defy it as they please. The law is not binding on them. Rather, the law’s content and applicability is actually bound to their whims as the ones with power.

So it would seem that an attempt at a republic will always reduce to some kind of oligarchy, most likely a representative democracy with a constitution. The constitution is merely an additional feature of the democracy that is meant to restrain both the people and the government. Except a constitution cannot really be effective in any consistent or long-term sense. It will not fatalistically restrain institutional agents of the state from using power and the lay public from engaging in majoritarian or mob behavior. As the decades and centuries pass, it becomes less and less meaningful and effective as a society evolves (or devolves). At best, it functions as a lame rationale to provide legitimacy to the state while its alleged function as a restraint is rendered meaningless by the ability of the state’s institutional agents to exercise their power. A constitution does nothing to actually restrain or take away the opportunity or ability for institutional agents of the state to use power.

The notion of the rule of law would only make sense if the state was an entity external to human interaction, as if it were not made up of human beings but was enforced through some natural or supernatural mechanism. But the state is quite clearly created and administered by acting human beings. It is not some sort of intrinsic mechanism of nature that functions independently of human action, or the result of the will of some deity. The only laws that can be said to rule all on their own irrespective of men are natural laws. But natural law is not something that political systems are based on, as political systems are the synthetic creations of men. At best, natural law is an independent standard of justice that currently existing political systems may be held up to and discredited with. While some early natural law theories were used to legitimize states, a properly formed and applied natural law theory can only be used to delegitimize states.

There is good reason to be quite skeptical towards the effectiveness of governmentally created laws to begin with. Not only is it absurd to propose that laws can rule on on their own, but the ability of human beings to enforce them is quite limited due to a certain factor of unpredictability in the behavior of human beings. That is, the mere existence of a law illegalizing certain actions and even the existence of an institutional apparatus that attempts to have humans enforce such a law and threatens punishment for defying it does not guarantee that people will not in fact defy the law and that people will not in fact get away with defying the law. While this has obvious implications with respect to laws prohibiting economic interactions (which are miserable failures in light of their own alleged goals), it is even true with respect to laws against basics that everyone pretty much agrees are wrong like murder, rape and theft.

The notion that most people generally don’t murder, rape and steal either solely or primarily because there is a governmental law against them is rather absurd if one accepts the premise of free will (at least some kind of compatibalism). The existence of a governmental law in and of itself is not the cause of good or ethical behavior, and some people do engage in the shunned actions in question despite the existence of a law against it. If someone is truly determined to engage in such an action, they are going to do it regardless of whether or not there is a governmental law against it. Criminals are criminals precisely because they have an extremely high time preference, I.E. they want what they want now regardless of potential negative consequences that may come about in the future. If someone does not engage in such an action, it is mostly likely primarily because they themselves find it ethically impermissible. Social convention itself, combined with the natural incentives towards social cooperation, is the primary reason why most people tend to generally be peaceful in interpersonal relations.

In a fundamental sense, a society truly cannot be planned or socially engineered in the long-run, even by laws. A society is the sum total of interactions between the individuals that make it up, and such interpersonal relations are so complex and diverse that it would be impossible for a single individual or organization to truly predict and absolutely control their behavior. No human being or group of human beings has the mental capacity, let alone the physical ability, to deterministically control and pre-empt the behavior of everyone within a society. They would have to be omniscient to do so. The mere fact that one can only be at one place at one time renders any attempt to efficiently exercise such control ridiculous and pointless. So it could be said that all government is fortunately limited by definition, limited by the natural limits of human ability and the unpredictability and diversity of human behavior.

Quite clearly, the law is not something worthy of putting much of one’s faith in, even with good intentions.

————————————————————–

For more:
The Myth of the ‘Rule of Law’ by John Hasnas [article]
Anarchy and the Law edited by Ed Stringham [book]
I’m Allowed to Rob You! by Larken Rose [video]

Brainpolice on The Myth of ‘The Rule of Law’ is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Last week Pete and I conducted our first weekly livestream, it went over well and we’re going to do it again this Friday at 4pm est. We’ll be livestreaming from one of our MAC’s at http://justin.tv/copblock and on Qik.com/copblock via my iPhone (see Qik video below of last weeks broadcast).

As Pete stated last week:

The impetus for our streaming this Friday is two-fold.

Firstly, we’ve long-discussed doing a regular segment. The benefit – discussing relevant content in another medium, especially one that allows for interaction (via chat) – is clear. We can all learn from each other and in the process safeguard our individual rights while growing larger and more tight-knit as a community.

Secondly, it will allow us to test the functionality of various streaming applications, which will be of use for those of you who have a smartphone. A couple of weeks ago I downloaded a number of streaming applications with the intention of writing a comparison post. When I’ve used each app, I’ve kept notes about the experience (quality, whether the stream fed correctly to the Internet, etc.). This Friday’s upcoming segment and future segments will allow for more data to be collected.

Again, we hope other CopBlockers join in, ask questions and seek accountability in policing today. We’ll see you there tomorrow.

p

Pete and Ademo Continue LiveStream Friday – Week Two Tomorrow is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Experiencing the failure of centralized planning on a massive scale (in this case for the area of police “protection”) Detroit residents are arming themselves, getting guard dogs, forming neighborhood watches and hiring others to help protect their home or person to proactively mitigate crime. Good for them.

As reported by TheDaily.com on February 5th:

One high-ranking official in the county legal system, speaking to The Daily, said the rise in justifiable homicides mirrors a local court system that’s increasingly lenient of the practice.

“It’s a lot more acceptable now to get your own retribution,” the official said. “And the justice system in the city is a lot more understanding if people do that. It‘s becoming a part of the culture.”

That’s not a stretch. The same write-up included this passage from a Detroit police department employee:

‘It’s not about police response time because often the act has already taken place by the time the police are called,’ said Sgt. Eren Stephens. She said citizens have a right to defend themselves.

Should we be surprised? Not at all. If anything we should be surprised that people have put up with the current racket for so long.

Do you want government providing your food? To handle the growing, harvesting, processing, distribution and sale (or rationing)? Of course not – you know they’d do a poor job. So why trust people working for a claimed monopoly, who are subjected to the same perverse incentives, to supply “protection”?

How hypocritical it is for supporters of policing today (who think competition is untenable), to claim the need for police to protect people and property when the police themselves exist solely on the wealth others have created. The very foundation is based on violence. Every police salary paid or round of ammunition purchased was bought with stolen money.  This circular logic says it’s ok for someone with a badge to steal from someone to “protect” them. Why does an action – theft – become ok when the thief dons a particular attire?

It doesn’t. Fortunately that bad idea – that certain should be granted extra authority based on their place of employment, is eroding.

What’s becoming more commonplace in Detroit is just a harbinger of things to come elsewhere. Governments will implode under their own bloat. More people will withdraw their consent if not for moral qualms, because they find it in interest to become more self-sufficient or reach a consensual interaction with someone who has that comparative advantage to provide a certain good/service.

In his 1849 essay The Production of Security, Gustave de Molinari proposed much the same. From a reviewer:

His singular contribution, then, was to lead us away from the false assumption of Hobbes that somehow the state was necessary to keep society from devolving into chaos. On the contrary, argued Molinari, the voluntary society is the source of order that comes from freedom itself. There is no contradiction or even tension between liberty and security. If free enterprise works well in one sector, it can work well in other sectors too.

Shouldn’t you have the choice how your money is spent? Wouldn’t you expect greater transparency and bang-for-your-buck if you yourself hired them and had the option to fire them? That’s what society could look like without a system sheltered from competition.

For more on this check out the two videos below or read

Thanks to my bud Greg Wamble for putting this story on my radar.

Frustrated, Detroit Residents Compete with Police is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

[This post will serve as the meta-post for all Michael Allison-related content. We welcome submissions to help keep this page timely and on-point, whether that's a link to a breaking story or a write-up about public official accountability (or lack thereof).]

Michael Allison was threatened with 75yrs in a cage for recording public officials on duty.

A mechanic and construction worker by profession, 41-year-old Allison just wanted to work on cars he owned that were parked on private property (his mom’s) in southeast Illinois, yet area bureaucrats, citing a local zoning ordinance, demanded that he register or garage each vehicle. Seeing such measures as nothing more than revenue generators, Allison filed suit against the city. They responded not with open conversation but with harassment from their enforcers – those wearing badges.

Allison openly audio recorded his conversations with the police when they came to the property. Later, when given a court date, he recorded there as well, after being told that no court reporter would be present. When it was discovered that Allison was recording his recorder was seized and he was charged with five counts of felony wiretapping.

Allison has no prior criminal record. If convicted, he faces up to 75 years in prison.

As one commentator correctly noted: “That’s up to 75 years in prison for breaking a law Allison did not know existed, and which he violated in the name of protecting himself from what he saw as an injustice.”

His story is one of many in what’s become known to some as ‘on the job, on the record.’ If a public official is on-duty, being paid by taxpayers, they have no expectation of privacy. In fact, if claims made by public officials about ‘serving the public’ are true, they would welcome recording.

Allies:
Free Michael Allison group on Facebook

More:
2011. 01.31 – Police Tape: Is Chicago really planning on detaining anyone who records protestor arrests at the G-8 summit? via Slate.com
2011.09.28 – Radley Balko Reports: DA Considers Appeal on Judge’s Ruling about Michael Allison via CopBlock.org
2011.09.20 – Judge Rejects Eavesdropping Charges for Recording Police via Reason.com
2011.09.17 – Strict eavesdropping law ruled unconstitutional in Illinois case via CopBlock.org
2011.09.08 – Life in Prison for Recording Police: Michael Allison Speaks via Infowars.com
2011.09.06 – Misinformation & Distraction: The REAL story of felony eavesdropping charges in Illinois via DisclosureNewsOnline.com
2011.09.04 – Police Accountability Report – Episode 38 – Michael Allison via CopBlock.org
2011.08.03 – 75 Years for Recording Public Officials On Duty!? via CopBlock.org
2011.06.08 – Chicago State’s Attorney Lets Bad Cops Slide, Prosecutes Citizens Who Record Them via HuffingtonPost.com
2011.02.15 – MA’s Wiretapping Statute Targeted by Coalition of Free Speech Advocates via CopBlock.org
2010.12.09 – “The War On Cameras: It has never been easier—or more dangerous —to record the police” via CopBlock.org

Educate yourself and protect your rights! Check out CopBlock.org’s War on Cameras Map

Michael Allison is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

One of the most common statements I hear about CopBlocking (monitoring the police) is, “we don’t have enough people.” If that is the case where you live, considering moving to the Shire (aka New Hampshire). Liberty minded folks are moving here daily to live better lives, one where the government isn’t always sticking its nose in thier business, and CopBlocking is a major part of that. Check out these two CopBlocking videos from local Shire residents Ian and Derrick.

By Ian Freeman, via FreeKeene.com

Nemi is pulled over on the way back from Concord by a statie for her outdated inspection sticker. The statie attempts what is becoming a common intimidation tactic: claiming to a cameraman he’ll be arrested if recording continues. I continue anyway and he backs down from the threat, just like happened to Ademo and Luthor & Derrickr ecently in other incidents.

 

By Derrick Freeman, via LiveFreeorDance.com

I was pulled over while driving 50 mph in a 55 mph zone. The officer alleges I was going 72. That is impossible because I was stuck behind a slow-moving pickup truck for about 20 miles, and that truck was keeping me slowed at a pace of 50 mph.

I was driving from Keene to Manchester with Luthor Kingsley of the Shire. We were about halfway there when I passed a cop. Luthor pointed him out; he was hiding on the side of the highway with his lights off. I checked my speed and was relieved to notice that I was going 50mph. I almost certainly would have been going faster if not for the truck in front of me holding me up in the single lane of traffic. Then I saw the blue lights behind me. I fired up my camera and asked Luthor to record.

The cop told me I couldn’t see the radar, that Luthor had to turn off the audio on the camera, that Luthor had to give the cop his ID, and that it was illegal wiretapping to record audio of him without his permission. We gave him a bit of a schooling in the law with polite refusal to comply with his demands. He returned with a ticket for $103.33.

I’ll be seeing him in court. I would rather be left alone. I don’t enjoy giving up my valuable time and energy and resources to defend myself against being extorted by agents of the state. I’ve already spent about 24 hours in filming, editing, researching law, and posting about this event. Now I’ll have a day in court, travel expenses, plus the opportunity costs of a day’s work in order to attend court, or I will have a warrant out for my arrest. Then, in court, if I am found guilty, I will likely face 2 days in jail to pay off the fine at $50 a day.

Some stranger with a badge is incentivized by a quota system to spend his time pulling over people like me who haven’t victimized anyone. For him, it’s 15 minutes and he can wash his hands of the situation and collect his paycheck–unless someone takes the issue to court rather than paying the fine. In that case, he is rewarded for his victimization by being paid time and a half for his appearance in court. The taxpayers of his town will be forced to foot the bill for that expense. As a result of his actions, I could be put in a cage (again at the expense of the taxpayer) for what was a non-situation.

The absurdity makes my head spin. If you’d like to help me meet expenses to handle this case successfully and document the process with video, please donate at LiveFreeOrDance.com

CopBlocking Grows in the “Shire” is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

On 07/02/11 I crossed from Nogales, Mexico into Nogales, AZ and when I did I, as usual, I refused to answer questions unrelated to a legally required customs and citizenship declaration. The result was my being manhandled into the back room, yelled at, threatened, arrested, handcuffed, and placed in a cell. I remained in the cell for approximately forty-five minutes until a ICE Special Agent arrived and told the legally inept CBP officers that I hadn’t actually broken any laws. I wrote in detail about my arrest here.

Since my arrest I have retained the services of Attorney Keith Knowlton, a civil rights attorney in Arizona, who is pursuing a Bivens action against the Department of Homeland Security for my unlawful arrest.  He requested a copy of video from the Nogales Point-of-Entry as well as my arrest report.  Stunningly, they could not locate the video or an official arrest report… but they did locate the “inspection report.”

You’ll note that I was accused of murdering a federal officer (18 USC 1114) and “forcibly … impeding” a federal officer (18 USC 111) .  According to the report I was let go with a verbal warning.   Not bad I’d say for a homicide.

The very next day following my arrest I filed an official complaint with DHS/ICE/CBP’s Professional Standards Division regarding my illegal arrest and the unprofessional conduct exhibited by the officers.  I had an over-the-phone interview on 07/03/11 and was told that an investigation was started and that I would hear back within a month.

After hearing only crickets coming from the direction of the Department of Homeland Security for approximately four months, I filed a complaint with New Hampshire United States Senator Jeanne Shaheen’s office regarding their apparent unwillingness to investigate misconduct on the part of their own employees.  I also filed a complaint with the Arizona FBI office for a violation of the criminal civil rights law, 18 USC 242.  (The FBI has subsequently reported that they are not interested in investigating this further.)

I received a phone call from Senator Shaheen’s office today and was informed that ICE/CBP’s official position is that I was never arrested.  This clearly is because of the misleading, inaccurate, and lying report filed by the federal officer who arrested me.  I informed Senator Shaheen’s staffer that the CBP Officer lied on his report by omitting the fact that he both told me “you’re under arrest” and handcuffed me, prior to putting me in a cell.  The staffer, a very nice woman named Letizia Ortiz, told me that CBP reported me as being repeatedly uncooperative when I cross the border and that it is their position that I was never arrested on 07/02/11.  Their position that I was never arrested is based on the report filed by CBP Officer Aldrich.

If that is where they get their official position from, wouldn’t it also be their position that I murdered a federal officer?

Complete lies.

Be careful when dealing with the government.

FACT: Police Will Violate Your Rights and Lie/Omit to Cover It Up is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

I was on my way home from work when I noticed some police activity. So I stopped and got out my camera. It wasn’t long after I started recording that I drew the undivided attention of Deputy Krow of the Clay County Sheriff’s office. Deputy Krow seems to be genuinely puzzled by the concept of a citizen recording public officials performing their jobs. Deputy Krow demands some ID and I decline. At that point, in Deputy Krow’s mind, I have committed CONTEMPT OF COP! Deputy Krow provides us with some hilarious content! Enjoy.

HONORYOUROATH

Photography Is Not Confusing! is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Adam Kokesh of Adam vs. The Man and I went to the Hudson, NH Police Department to file a criminal complaint against former House Speaker and presidental candidate Newt Gingrich’s security agent who assaulted Adam earlier the previous day. When we were there, Adam was filming, and was threatened with arrest.

I told the shift commander that he was absolutely incorrect about New Hampshire law due to a 1st Circuit Court of Appeals decision that denied qualified immunity to Boston, MA Police for making a similar arrest.

It is okay to be wrong… every human is wrong about stuff all the time. It does take, however, a big man to admit that he was wrong, and Lieuteant Dyac of the Hudson, NH Police proved to be a big man. Of course, it would have been preferred that he knew the law ahead of time, but we all know that ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse for US, but IS for state agents.

I am going to write a letter to Hudson, NH Police Chief Jason Lavoie praising his commander for his willingness to admit a mistake. I’d respectfully ask you all either do the same or call to quickly ask that the Chief be told that his Lieutenant is a step above many law enforcers we’ve encountered being wrong about the law. By taking the time to research the issue before taking action, Lieuteant Dyac saved his department from civil liability. He clearly is an asset to that agency.

Photography Is Not A Crime‘s Carlos Miller has done an excellent piece on this story, and his commenters seem to agree with my praise of the Lieuteant:

Joshua

Bravo to Lt. Dyac, he is the epitome of a good LEO. If only more cops could be more like him.

Interestingly, the Boston Police Department has finally come out and admitted that their officers were wrong to arrest the man who created this case law which I cited to the Lieutenant which kept Adam from being arrested.  Getting the government to apologize seems to only take five years and a federal lawsuit.

I believe positive encouragement for police accountability is as important as negative.  If you agree with me and want to praise Lt. Dyac for taking the time to research what I was saying and ultimately admitting he was wrong, Chief Lavoie of the Hudson Police can be reached here:

Chief Jason Lavoie
1 Constitution Drive – Hudson, New Hampshire 03051
Business line: 603-886-6011

Hudson, NH Police Commander Sets an Example For Other Police Agencies To Follow is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights