A Bum Wrap

Tuesday, April 8th, 2014

This article, a handwritten letter to the Union Leader by Eric Cable who is currently incarcerated, was typed up and shared via CopBlock.org’s submit page by a friend of his.

Date of Interaction: 7/14/2012
Police Employees Involved: Sgt. Dirth, Officer Allie, Rockingham County Prosecutors
Police Employee Contact Information: 603) 293-2037, marinepatrol@dos.nh.gov

My name is Eric Cable and this was written prior to my sentencing hearing in which I was sentenced to five to twelve years, which I consider excessive given the circumstances. I hope that after reading this you will understand why I feel this way.

I know you are a very good and decent and not to mention unbiased reporter for the Union Leader. I am also well aware that you’ve closely followed my case. I’m writing to you to shed light and to expose a few things that were failed to be addressed through this trial. Some you may be aware of, some you may not. First, just a little about me, so you know me as a man of good honest character and not the monster the prosecuting D.A. made me out to be. I am a college graduate with a bachelor’s degree in Business and also a minor in philosophy. I have worked two jobs and sometimes three for nearly ten years. Over the last five years I’ve joined the Freemasons, the orders of Bektash Shrine and Scottish Rite masons. To be a brother of these prestigious organizations, you have to be an honest and honorable man of good report. You go through an interview and background check process first. Over the last five years, I have donated countless hours to my local community to raise money for the Shrine hospital for children, and the Scottish Rite charity funds for dyslexic children.

What happened on July 14th, 2012 was a horrible, inexcusable, tragic accident. Brendan Yerry was my best friend. I will forever live that day and feel the burden of losing him right before my eyes. I will live the nightmare of panicking and searching and diving for his life, and coming up empty. You can’t explain that kind of experience to anyone and hope they understand. Unless you’ve lived it, you never will. Now, on to the facts and why I’m writing to you.

My charge was originally a DWI class A felony. The day of the accident, I gave a brief statement of what happened. I was still in shock and didn’t want to give a full description as I was more concerned about the ongoing search for Brendan. I was soon arrested and taken away. You already know why, and how, as you’ve followed my case since day one. I want you to remember a sentencing hearing about my unconstitutional blood draw. Sergeant Dirth, of Marine Patrol, told me in his own words, “You have no right to refuse.” He said this many times and backed up his statement with a felony blood draw form. I didn’t know that this is and was a clear violation of constitutional law. We challenged it and won. That is not what I’d like to call to your attention, though. Sgt. Dirth, under oath, repeatedly lied, claiming that he never said, “You have no right to refuse.” This was a lie, and the judge saw through this. Pointing this out may seem like nothing major. It is just me showing you an example of the many dishonest (under oath, even) character flaws, and lack of ethics and morals. That lie is nothing compared to the ones he told to Brendan’s grieving family and to Jackie Proulx in the fall of 2012, in the month of October. Keep in mind that I’ve showed you, and you witnessed that hearing where he lied, under oath.

One night in late October 2012, I realized I hadn’t heard from Jackie all that much lately. I texted her to see how she was holding up and if she was okay. She and I were great friends and were there for one another throughout our grieving. Brendan being my best friend, I did everything I could to help her in any way that I could. I raised $700 dollars for her to help pay rent, helped organize my friends to move her out of her apartment, took her to Red Sox games, a weekend to Berlin, had movie nights and even slept on her couch many nights so she wouldn’t have to be alone. This all changed that night in October 2012. After I texted her to see how she was doing, I got a very upset, distrustful response. She told me Sgt. Dirth was over the Yerry’s house and so was she. Apparently he wanted to update them all on his investigation. What she said was appalling. She told me that he told them all that the three of us (Nate, Andy, and I) were not cooperating, that he is disturbed by the “lack of information” we’ve provided, he felt we were hiding something, and that he doesn’t know what happened to Brendan (I have copies of the texts to prove it). Let me point something out that will bring relevance to the timeliness of Sgt. Dirth’s meeting. My felony DWI had been dropped that month. It was dropped to possibly investigate a negligent homicide charge. Double Jeopardy was in play, so prosecuting my DWI wouldn’t allow for Negligent Homicide. Now up until this point, Jackie and I were still close.

As far as I knew, the Yerry’s, although grieving and hurt, had no distrust for me, nor should they. I spoke with them twice offering my sympathy and condolences on the phone, offered to answer any questions, attended Brendan’s funeral, and wrote them a letter along with a check for $1000.00 dollars that we raised for the Brendan Walker Yerry Foundation. I did everything I could to help everyone and to ease the grieving the best way I could. Well, with the DWI being null processed, that opened the door for Sgt. Dirth. He knows all too well in a case like this, the best move for his career to get this charge accepted, is to have a grieving, angry, family that doesn’t trust the person who is being charged. That was clearly the purpose of that visit, and as you already know by witnessing him lie firsthand, this was another lie. I told you I gave a statement. It was brief but to the point. In the next 48 hours after the accident, Nate and Andy gave theirs. Their statements were full of descriptions of that day, including detailed descriptions of the accident as well as the effort to save Brendan’s life. Both of their statements were identical, and although they never saw mine or spoke with me after about any of it, all matched perfectly with my statement. Why? Because it was the truth. Officer Dirth claims I didn’t want to give him a detailed description of that day or a report.

When I went to the impound to retrieve my belongings off the boat, he asked me to answer questions. My step father was with me. He witnessed Sgt. Dirth ask me where everyone was sitting on the boat. Sgt. Dirth then said he could not speak with me if I had an attorney. I said I would like to answer, but I had an attorney. Sgt. Dirth then stopped the conversation and asked no more questions. Having an attorney “is” a constitutional right. I never heard from Sgt. Dirth again. I guess he didn’t need that statement anymore? This was in the third week of July. We are now in late October. Sgt. Dirth is making these claims and statements to the Yerry family. I checked with Nate and Andy immediately. I was very upset and wanted to know what Sgt. Dirth was talking about. Both Andy and Nathan say they have never met Sgt. Dirth. They told me they gave statements to other law enforcement officers in July and that was the last communication they had with any law enforcement. My question is, how can we be uncooperative if we weren’t asked in any way to cooperate? Officer Dirth not only had full statements from Andy and Nathan, he had my statement from that night, and my willingness to answer his questions (which he admitted) with my attorney present. Officer Dirth never contacted myself or any of the other people involved in 3 ½ months. He had the truth and our full cooperation. What he did that night was an unethical, immoral lie, and everything going forward from then in regards to the truth was based on his disregard to the feelings of Brendan’s family and loved ones. If he cared for them at all, he would have given them our statements and not deceived them about what he knew, our statements, or his failure to reach out to me after the last time we spoke in July.

Is this who we put our trust in? Someone who will lie to a grieving family about their loved ones to help bring a more serious charge against a person who loses his best friend, just to further his own career? The fact that this man lied to Brendan’s family with no remorse or care for their pain makes me sick to my stomach and always will. Who knows what else he has lied about or to whom. These are the types of officers who are put on the Laurie list and for good reason.

In early October 2012, Sgt. Dirth pulled another sneaky move. DMV law requires BAC tests in DWI cases to be submitted within 30 days. Sgt. Dirth failed to turn in my “unconstitutionally” collected BAC level to the DMV in time. He filed it after the 30 days. The state rejected it. Sgt. Dirth, angered by this, went against ethics once again and contacted the attorney’s office at the DMV. He asked the prosecuting attorney (whose name I have on record, and Dirth’s contact with him I have on file) asking if he could re-file and try to get my license suspended. This attorney told him to do so. Dirth then re-filed his motion to get my license suspended. I received a letter from the DMV that my license was suspended. This took me by surprise since I had received a notice a few weeks earlier that Dirth’s motion was denied. I contacted my attorney who investigated and found another one of Dirth’s unethical, dishonest law practices. We filed for a hearing for this matter. I never stepped into the courtroom when the judge ruled against Sgt. Dirth’s sneaky unethical tactic. Again, another reason why officers like this belong on the Laurie list. One more point I want to mention before I switch to Sgt. Dirth’s methods of upholding the law: In his investigation, and discovery I received after it concluded, his final comments were, “Eric remained polite and cooperative through all of our interactions.” That isn’t quite what he told the Yerry family, now is it? After his investigation is over he finalizes his discovery with my “polite cooperativeness,” how can that change? I’d say it was for the purposes of pushing an indictment by whatever means necessary.

Now let’s fast forward a year and a half to my trial, the week of December 19th.I believe I remember you sitting there during the prosecutor’s closing argument. The prosecutor compared a child running out into the street and being hit by a car to the accident I was involved in and claimed I was criminally liable. In fact, I did not hit anything. I was asked to drive, asked to turn, and given the O.K. to turn by Brendan. I failed to recognize the circumstances before it was too late. My friend, who was intoxicated as well, lost his balance mid turn when we went over some boat waves in the water. In Jerome’s analogy, the child never had a chance to move their position prior to any turn, or waves, because the child is not in this car. The child didn’t ask the driver to drive, turn, or give the O.K. after being checked upon for his readiness. The driver didn’t hit a natural obstacle (waves) in the road that caused the child to fall into the driver’s vehicle. In fact, that child would have never even had a chance. The child’s balance or his own decision making was not impaired by alcohol the way my friend’s may have been at the time of the accident. There are many other mistakes or human factors in my case than in Mr. Blanchard’s analogy. Is this who the public puts their trust in, who we pay to uphold the law? It would seem this analogy shows extreme negligence. Now, why would Jerome be so eager to prosecute my case and so inclined to pass up his fictional one? Well, let’s now rewind to October 2012.

After the aforementioned DMV hearing in October 2012, my then attorney Eric Wilson had a brief conversation with a Rockingham County attorney named Michael Zaino. The conversation was in regards to the status of the investigation and if he had a feeling of an indictment or any further charges. Mr. Zaino told Mr. Wilson that my case was “kicked around” and many D.A.’s and prosecutors saw this for what it was. A terrible, tragic accident among two best friends, not criminal negligence. My attorney relayed this conversation to me and I kept praying that I would face the DWI charge, and not be held criminally responsible in the eyes of the court. In my heart and soul, I’ll always feel guilt and pain over what happened. I know it was an accident and it’s something I’ll always have to live with no matter what.

Months passed. I heard nothing. I was told that nobody really wanted to prosecute my case, and that it was a very delicate case. Then, in spring 2013, I received an indictment – two of them, actually. Now, how did this happen after all I’ve been hearing and what I’ve been told? Are you familiar with the names Jim Reams and Tom Reid? I know you are, as I’ve read every article of yours regarding their untrustworthy, deceitful, dishonorable abuse of power and betrayal of public trust. Jim Reams was the lead D.A. on my case, along with Tom Reid. What does that have to do with anything? Well, Tom Reid resides in the area of Northwood Lake. Mr. Reid’s backyard is where the accident took place. There is conflict of interest, by law, here. Mr. Reid’s agenda to prosecute this accident because of its whereabouts and not necessarily for the facts is and should be exposed. Mr. Reams is under administrative suspension, pending the investigation into his abuse of power and corruptness. His sidekick Tom Reid, who last I knew was also under investigation by the F.B.I., has resigned. Both of these men are criminals. Both of them were heavily involved in my prosecution. Reams was seeing to it that the accident in Reid’s backyard was prosecuted. Crooked, deceitful, dishonest, power abusing D.A.s were at the reins of my case. Now, with these two power D.A.’s at the time, the bosses on my case, do you see why Mr. Blanchard wanted to prosecute my case and wouldn’t prosecute his so called “accident” story? Mr. Reid and Reams wanted to do so, and they wanted this swept under the rug. Mr. Blanchard was just the guy they needed, the guy who would play their game. If you think that’s all, you’re wrong. There’s even more to this story.

When I was first indicted in the spring of 2013, guess who was originally assigned as the prosecutor? Michael Zaino. Mr. Zaino was very approachable and willing to work with me and my legal team on the case. Before we even began to go over discovery and build a defense, Mr. Zaino offered me a plea bargain of one year in Rockingham County Dept. of Corrections. This was an extremely fair offer. He explained that he was going by case log from the Erica Blizzard case. In her case, she was at a much higher BAC level, was going faster than I was or could, and crashed head on into an island. The results were her best friend being ejected from the boat and dying from her injuries. She took her case to trial. She was found guilty of Class B Negligence. She received 6 months in county, and 6 months on house arrest. Mr. Zaino’s offer was very generous, but everyone knows you don’t accept initial offers without first conducting a defense investigation as well. To plead to a one year sentence when a woman whose crime was more extreme than mine, who took it to trial and lost, received less time, was unlikely. My attorney declined and expressed needing time to go over our defense and would like to pursue further negotiations with Mr. Zaino. Mr. Zaino understood completely. Mr. Zaino was also aware of some things that have been going on in this case. My attorney, on my request, relayed that no matter what plea, or outcome we agreed to, it was of the utmost importance to me that the Yerry family is and would be made aware of my full cooperation, and how hard all this is for me, despite what they had been told. Mr. Zaino wholeheartedly agreed with us that he would make sure they were informed. Getting them the truth was all that I cared about and was willing to work with the state as long as everything, including the truth of what happened to Brendan and how it happened was finally told to his grieving family.

Up to this point, they had been fed lies. My friend and his family deserve better. It is my duty to give that to them. Mr. Zaino understood my compassion and wasn’t afraid to do the right thing by law, and by Brendan and his family. Not long after this conversation, the corrupt dynamic duo of Reams and Reid got involved. They can’t have this getting out, now can they? Shortly after our negotiations with Mr. Zaino, he was “mysteriously re-assigned” to another part of the building or case. I really never got a straight answer. It seems all too convenient doesn’t it? Sweep this under the rug before it gets out of hand. Reams and Reid then assigned Jerome Blanchard to the case. He had their agendas in full view and was unwilling to negotiate further or to relay any of my feelings about what truly happened. He was either blind to it, or just didn’t know. With all the corruptness that surrounds my case, I’ll leave that up to you to decide. Mr. Jerome Blanchard was quite eager to take on Reid and Ream’s case against me to further his career.

Now let’s look to the future of my sentencing hearing and let me tell you what you’re probably going to hear, and why I’ve chosen to send you this letter after my hearing and not before. The reason I’m sending it after is to not affect my hearing at all. For better or worse, it is intended to expose this sort of corruption and help prevent it in the future.

My sentencing hearing is scheduled for February 13th, 2014. I think you’ll probably cover this story. I’ve been told Mr. Blanchard is going to seek a 5-10 year sentence for me, and my attorney is going to seek one similar to Erica Blizzard’s but with a little more jail time, as well as probation and community service. A sentence of 5-10 is excessive especially compared to the Blizzard case and from the state’s original offer. I declined this offer because I am a man with a heart. This trial meant everything to me in regards to the truth. I made it clear to my attorney that the truth of Brendan’s last few moments on earth, our cooperation and helpfulness, and the Yerry’s right to know the truth was my main focus. The trial was heartbreaking and very sad. It all could have been avoided had the authorities that we all put our trust in been honest from the start. There would have been no trial. I would have taken the year plea or less. The Yerry’s would have gotten closure. There would be no distrust. I took this to trial to do the only thing I knew would be right by all parties involved; Tell the truth, take responsibility and give my friend and his family the proper closure they all so greatly deserved. This was the only way. Should I be punished for doing the right thing? By giving the truth the only way it was ever going to be given? Should I be punished for exercising my constitutional right to a trial by jury? Why is the one year sentence offer no longer considered after trial? I did what any noble man in my position would do for his friend and family when they were failed by the authorities.

Speaking of authorities, there is one other officer I’d like to call to your attention: Officer Seth Allie of N.H. Marine Patrol. I’d like to bring him to your attention because of my sentencing hearing. After you are done reading this, you may consider him as another Laurie List candidate.

During my trial, Officer Allie testified that he had given my sobriety test wrong – just one part of it, the stand on one foot test. He had to correct himself mid-test while I was performing it. This caused me to have to do it twice. The second time was not successful for me. Now that is fine. The point I’m making is Mr. Allie’s memory skills. This is a procedure he trained in, that he gives regularly, one that he should know like the back of his hand. Yet, he still “forgot” how to administer the test. A temporary memory lapse, okay, we’re all human. Let’s move forward. Officer Allie then forgot to read me my Miranda rights, another one of those things that should easily be remembered. Now that’s two examples of memory lapse. Officer Allie is no doubt a decent guy and was a total gentleman during our interactions. I question his memory, and if you spent any time with him at all you’d understand why. After he arrested me, we went to the station, and then the hospital before returning to the station. Officer Allie warned me about Sgt. Dirth’s unethical behavior which came to me as a surprise. However, Dirth, being Allie’s boss did most of the booking and Allie had little to no part in the rest of the evening, nor did he speak with Dirth about the event outside of the sobriety testing. Allie followed Dirth around the booking area like a puppy dog until Dirth relieved him.

Over the next 48 hours or so, Officer Allie started to piece/put together his reports of the incident. He claims and put in his official report which I have in discovery that I told him what happened on the boat. He claims and reported I said I was turning the boat, Brendan fell out, and I didn’t know, one of the other men on the boat had to tell me. This would paint a picture of Brendan falling over the side of the boat, not the front. This would also suggest some sort of foul play. No surprise there, huh? I never had this conversation with Officer Allie. I would not have said this because this is not what happened. It does not match my statements to office Juneau earlier that night, nor does it match either man’s statements that were given the next day. Officer Allie clearly “misremembered” again. But this time it’s a lot bigger deal. If you do not know/remember what I said, or if it never happened, don’t give or make an official report based on what you thought you might have heard or what you may have remembered. Officers are put on the Laurie List, and justifiably so, for this sort of falsifying evidence – but it doesn’t end here for Officer Allie.

In October of 2012, I attended a snow machine rally in the Raymond area. Officer Allie also apparently did. It was brought to my attention that Officer Allie has given an official report and may testify at my sentencing hearing on what he “claims” to have witnessed that day while he was off duty. According to Allie, he was standing in a concession line, and witnessed me being extremely intoxicated and being helped to my feet by a friend of mine. He then claims to have witnessed me fall to the ground and start laughing. He said my friends were embarrassed and telling me to get up. He claims that based on his years of experience, I was clearly intoxicated. This is his official statement to the court and he may testify to that in a bid to get my sentence as harsh as they can. If this was true, and I was this man, then I would agree with what Allie saw and his statement, and his presumed testimony. However, it is not. This happened over a year and a half ago. We have already been over how fuzzy officer Allie’s memory can be with things that he memorizes, or is supposed to, and in things that happened in just 48 hours. How well do you think he remembers something that happened a year and a half ago? Let’s find out.

On the day of this event, I worked all morning. As soon as I got out of work, I drove to a friend’s house. They were all waiting to get up there as they were meeting some friends that were already there. I followed them up to Raymond. It took quite some time to get parked and walk the long distance to get to where everyone else was. I didn’t arrive until between the times of 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM. When we finally got to where everyone else was standing, I noticed that my friend Jesse was highly intoxicated. I had no alcoholic beverages at all to this point. Jesse offered me a beverage from his cooler. I asked if anyone was not drinking to make sure that I had a sober ride home if I decided to have any. My friend Tanya said she would drive my car back home, so I accepted Jesse’s offer. Not long after, Jesse was having a hard time standing up. I convinced him that he needed to slow down his drinking and get some food into his system and something other than alcohol to drink. I helped him around to get food as he stumbled. Not all that flattering, but something any friend would do for another. Allie claims he saw this and it was me. I have over half a dozen witnesses to the exact opposite. I left the snow machine rally roughly two hours after arriving. It would be impossible for me or anyone to get intoxicated to that level in such a short period of time without being noticed by the people surrounding them, as well as the security there.

Officer Allie’s legal statement of what he “misremembers” stands as a means to get me punished with a strict sentencing. Tanya, from what I understand, was asked by my attorney to give a statement to the truth of that day and was asked to speak as well. She SHOULDN’T HAVE HAD TO. She shouldn’t have had to be involved. It is clear Allie doesn’t remember, saw someone he thought was me, or is just manipulating the facts intentionally to incriminate me. I’ll leave that up to you to decide. My point is that officers should not make official reports, or testimony on things they don’t remember, manipulate, or just piece together. If you don’t know something or remember, don’t claim to. It’s a clear attempt to incriminate me. Why else would this even be brought up? Falsifying reports or testimony in court is a criminal offense. In this case, making something up should be seen as one if not both of the above. If Officer Allie has done this, as many times in my case, how many others has he done this in, and how many more will he be willing to do the same thing to in the future? These are people’s lives he is affecting. What if I got a five year sentence instead of a three year sentence because of his false recollection and testimony? What if this was what happened to others? Or if it will happen to others in the future? This needs to stop. A step closer to cleaning this up and stopping this man from doing this again is to consider the Laurie List action and expose this sort of deceit and abuse of power. If Officer Allie had seen someone as drunk as he claims, why did he not notify any of the on duty police officers there, as this was a family event?

Everything I have written to you about is backed by evidence and is on file in my attorney’s office. I have text correspondence about Dirth’s visits to the Yerry’s, evidence about Zaino being “reassigned,” everything I have written about. If there are any questions you may have, I am more than willing to answer them. I don’t have my files in hand to send to you, but I can get anything you may be interested in.

As you can see, there was plenty of “behind the scenes” action going on in my case. Very heartbreaking and unbelievable deceit and abuse of power. No family deserves to be treated the way the Yerry’s were. They lost a son and a brother. I lost a best friend. I was honest since day one and we all thought the authorities would be as well. We were wrong. As I said before, the reason I am sending this after my hearing is because I am not looking for a pardon. I am however open to relief if any is warranted. If not, that is fine too. I’m here to take responsibility for my actions. But I do not feel that an excessive sentence for doing the right thing and telling the truth because the authorities we trust refused to is justifiable. I should not have had to do this. They should have been honest since day one like me.

I wrote this because there are two sides to every story. My side the state would like to forget. Rockingham County is under scrutiny already. Reams and Reid are at the forefront. They had everything to do with my case as well. Corruptness, deceit, betraying the public trust, and abuse of power starts from the top. It’s quite clear it trickles down, or at least did in my case. This letter is for all the citizens and families of our wonderful state of New Hampshire – citizens and families that don’t expect to be lied to, especially when they lose their loved ones. When the personal agendas of the people we put our trust in means more to them than upholding the law and protecting the peace, we have a serious problem.

I have mailed this to a dear friend of mine who I trust and love. I have asked him to type and email it to you on my behalf. You can feel free to correspond with him and he can relay any questions you might have. I’m not sure where my sentencing will land me at this time. I’ll be sentenced to either NH State Prison or Rockingham County. Either way, I’m open to questions or discussion. I am also planning on sending this letter to other sources as well. They include WMUR, MADD, Copblock.org, NHCLU, and Governor Hassan. There are two sides to every story. I put my trust in your moral and journalistic integrity.

So mote it be-
Eric Cable

A Bum Wrap is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Julian Heicklen Interviewed by Nathan Larson

Saturday, March 1st, 2014

In February 2014 Nathan Larson interviewed Julian Heicklen via email, the result of which was originally posted to Nathania.org. That interview is posted in full below as the issues covered are relevant and likely to be of interest to readers of CopBlock.org.

Both Larson and Heicklen have not just been vocal to right perceived wrongs but have taken action in an attempt to bring about a positive change.

Larson, a prolific writer, created and maintains the wikis Nathania.org, SuicideWiki.org, and ChildWiki.net. In On the Harms of Blindly Obeying by Nathan Larson, Larson outlined the outlined what occurs when individuals mindlessly follow rituals that serve only to pay homage to the State. The 2011 video Presidential Threat Lands Man in Cage, But Where’s The Victim? documented the caging of Larson.

Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor who in 2012 left the US “when Obama signed the NDAA of 2012, which gave him the authority to arrest and detain indefinitely any person without charges or a trial,” has been especially outspoken around jury nullification and marijuana – it’s not surprising then, that his actions have been detailed here at CopBlock.org.


Larson: What are the greatest opportunities for, and challenges to, informing the pool of prospective jurors about their jury nullification rights? In other words, if our goal is to make sure that as many jurors as possible know what their rights are, what do we need to do to achieve that, that we’re not already doing?


Julian Heicklen being hassled for offering jury nullification information to passerbys.

Heicklen: I think that we have done quite well. Distributing literature at court houses would have almost no effect, except that the courts and cops cannot stand it and do foolish things, like harassing and arresting distributors. This, of course, stirs up great publicity and spreads the word. Recently jury nullification billboards have been placed in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. James Babb is coordinating this activity. More billboards will emerge.

Recently several juries in 4 states have nullified. The New Hampshire assembly passed a state law saying that judges could not be punished for notifying juries of their rights. One judge in New Hampshire did this. Like all movements, it takes a generation for it to become complete.


Larson: Prison systems often claim that freedom of speech much be stifled in order to protect the security and good order of the institution. For example, Program Statement 5266.11 allows the Federal Bureau of Prisons to send back incoming publications containing sexually explicit text pertaining to sadomasochism, bestiality, etc. Presumably, the theory is that other prisoners who see the material might get offended and start a fight over it. How should prison systems balance such concerns with freedom to receive material concerning controversial topics; or should such freedom even be a concern, given that these are people who the government has decided should be deprived of some of their rights because of their criminal behavior?

Heicklen: People in prison lose some civil rights. Whether or not this does any good, I do not know, but I do not think it necessarily is illegal.



Nathan Larson

Larson: The 2010 U.S. Sentencing Commission report Federal Offenders Sentenced to Supervised Release notes that in 2008, federal courts revoked the supervised release terms of 33 percent of federal offenders whose supervised release cases were closed that year (i.e., 11,797 out of the 35,724 offenders) as a result of commission of new offenses or other violations of the conditions of supervised release.

a) Does supervision serve a useful purpose that is worth the costs in terms of restriction of liberty and sending people back to prison for non-criminal violations, or for victimless offenses such as drug use that they wouldn’t have been caught doing if they hadn’t been subject to such close monitoring?

b) Do you think supervision could even be counterproductive toward crime prevention, in that people who are only partially free have less incentive to refrain from going back to prison, since their ability to live a useful and enjoyable life, even if they stop their criminal behavior, has been somewhat curtailed by the supervisory restrictions?

c) Are there some conditions of supervised release that you think courts should quit imposing? E.g., the standard conditions against leaving one’s judicial district or associating with felons have sometimes been criticized as unnecessary; and the conditions requiring people to submit to having the government’s spyware installed on their computers, or to wearing a GPS anklet, are a significant infringement of privacy.

d) What do you think of the increasingly common practice of putting sex offenders, including those whose only offense was possession or distribution of child pornography, on lifetime terms of supervised release? (At the federal level, this became the practice recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines after the passage of the PROTECT Act of 2003).

Heicklen: I think supervision should depend on the individual. Sex offenders are notorious repeaters. Lifetime supervision can be justified.

For many others, it interferes with their returning to useful citizens. Asking people on probation not to associate with each other is pointless and fails.

Of course arresting anyone for using drugs is ridiculous in the first place.


Larson: What do you think of Schneckloth v. Bustamonte 412 U.S. 218 (1973), in which the Supreme Court ruled that police need not inform suspects of their right not to consent to a search? Would it be better if police officers had to give a Miranda-like warning, e.g. “You have a Fourth Amendment right not to consent to a search. Any contraband that I find can be used against you as probable cause for a wider search, or as evidence in a court of law.”

Heicklen: I am not sure about searches. I think the police should and will search if they expect you are carrying a weapon, or if they need identification of the individual. They always searched me after I was placed under arrest. Of course, I never carried any of these items. The lack of identification annoyed them. If I had to sign some document to get released, I signed John Galt.


Larson: It seems like it’s usually disadvantageous for a defendant to confess before he’s been charged with a crime, or outside of the plea bargaining process. Often they do confess, though, because they are ignorant of the law and misled by innuendo to believe that it will be to their benefit, or the victim’s benefit, to do so. The confession is usually admissible as long as the interrogator didn’t make any inappropriate promises.

Heicklen: Confessing to a crime before or after being charged is stupid.


Larson: What do you think about confessions in criminal cases; does it serve the interests of justice to allow them as evidence? The “Statement Against Interest” hearsay exception in Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) allows hearsay of a defendant’s inculpatory statements to be admitted as evidence; what about exculpatory statements (e.g. the defendant’s telling the interrogator “I didn’t do it”); should those be admissable hearsay? (Currently, they’re not, as was pointed out in Professor James Duane’s video.)

Heicklen: I think that none out of court statements should be allowed. If needed they should be given at the trial.


Larson: a) What are some U.S. Supreme Court decisions that you would most like to see reversed, and why?

b) What are some of the best pro-liberty opinions written by judges that you would recommend people read, and why? (This can include dissents.)

Heicklen: a) The Sparf opinion which allowed judges to not inform jurors of the right to nullify. [Sparf and Hansen v. United States--156 U.S. 51 (1895)]

b) Thurgood Marshall opinion ridiculing the idea that free speech could be illegal on the Supreme Court plaza [United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983)]

“I would hold 40 U.S.C. § 13k unconstitutional on its face. The statute in no way distinguishes the sidewalks from the rest of the premises, and excising the sidewalks from its purview does not bring it into conformity with the First Amendment. Visitors to this Court do not lose their First Amendment rights at the edge of the sidewalks any more than “students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969). Since the continuing existence of the statute will inevitably have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, there is no virtue in deciding its constitutionality on a piecemeal basis.”

Of course the police and judges ignore this decision. I have been arrested more than a dozen times and incarcerated for distributing pamphlets in front of courthouses.


Larson: What do you think of the practice of giving defendants harsher sentences for failing to express enough remorse? A federal judge writes, “I addressed the defendant: ‘I note in paragraph 45 of the PSR report that you knocked your then live in girlfriend off the front porch and broke her jaw in seven places and her leg in three places. Why would you do that to her?’ He responded: ‘She deserved it.’ I countered: ‘Excuse me, I don’t think I heard your answer.’ His follow up: ‘I said she deserved it.’ I don’t know what you could have said that would have helped you, but this really, really hurt you! He received an extra 10 months per word.”

Thus, if the defendant tells the judge what he wants to hear, then he gets a lighter sentence. As the judge notes, he’s not punishing the guy for every bone broken, but for every word he said that the judge didn’t like. Should there be concern about the implications for freedom of speech in these situations, since the defendant cannot say what he really thinks without being punished for it?

Heicklen: I think that it is inappropriate to punish a person for speech that is not libel.


Larson: What do you think of the Free State Project? Is the idea of concentrating libertarians in a sparsely populated state a good and realistic idea? What do you think of the implementation of this idea thus far?

Heicklen: I think that it is an excellent idea. Probably the only one that will work. Once the Libertarians take over NH, others will see the advantage and either join them or push their current state in the Libertarian direction. Those people who want to tell others how to behave can stay in their own states and pester each other.


Larson: What do you think of the Israeli Knesset‘s proportional representation system? Would that be a good model to import to the U.S., and use for choosing legislators in one or both houses of the U.S. Congress?

Heicklen: I like proportional representation. Israel has 13 political parties represented in the Knesset. As a result, less gets done. That is ideal, because the best government is the one that governs least.


Larson: What do you think of parliamentary systems? Are they superior to presidential systems, all things considered? Do you think that model should be imported to the U.S., so that the chief executive would be appointed by Congress rather than being elected; since then Congress could fire the President for misuse of his powers, without having to find him guilty of an impeachable offense?

Heicklen: I prefer the multiple branches of government, so that they can act as a check on each other, and see that less gets done. The government that governs least governs best. Of course President Obama has destroyed all this. He now arrests and detains anyone he wishes without charges or a trial. If Congress does not pass a law he wants, he issues it by executive decree. Obama is not a president. He is a dictator.


Larson: I notice that according to some of the accounts I read, or judging by the way they treated you, in some cases, the government seemed to suspect you of mental illness or mental disability given what they regarded as your unusual behavior in falling limp and so on when the police or court officers laid hands on you. This seems to be a common assumption when a lone activist is engaging in behavior they find inexplicable; if it’s a bunch of people, they seem more likely to understand that it’s civil disobedience. Does it seem to you that accusations of mental illness are used by the government to (a) distract from political controversies, (b) stigmatize and marginalize dissident activists, (c) violate dissidents’ dignity through court-ordered mental health diagnosis and treatment, and (d) justify the government’s restricting the dissident’s liberty? If so, what’s the best way to combat this?

Heicklen: The police and courts never thought that I had mental illness. They knew exactly what I was doing, and that it was succeeding. It drove them crazy, and they did stupid things, as I knew they would. Had they ignored me, I would have had no effect whatsoever. However they could not stand to have their chains pulled, gave me enormous publicity, and made themselves look foolish. The price of justice is eternal publicity.


Larson: Did you ever feel the way that Thoreau did after serving his prison sentence, in which, according to his essay, he “saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly purpose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions, as the Chinamen and Malays are; that, in their sacrifices to humanity, they ran no risks, not even to their property”? Did you ever feel frustrated with your fellow activists or fellow citizens; and if so, what have you learned are the best actions to take in response to such frustration?

Heicklen: There were frustrating moments, but I knew that was inevitable. These movements take time. Persistence is needed.

Over time, I had a large number of people working for jury nullification and other justice. The police were decent people trying to do their job.

The judges, with few exceptions, are scumbags, who only want to put people in jail. They have no understanding of the purpose of the courts, which is not to imprison people, but to keep them out of prison. They think the duty of the courts is to punish people. They are dead wrong. The purpose of a judicial system is to see that justice is done, which often means ignoring or changing the law.


Larson: What are the most important reforms that you think should be made to the judicial and penal systems, and why?

Heicklen: Every person in prison is there improperly and should be released. Either they had no jury trial, which violates the Constitution. The 6th Amendment says in part: “Whenever someone is on trial for committing a crime, he or she has the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury” It does not say may have the right or unless he waives a jury trial. Anyone in prison without a jury trial should be released immediately.

If the prisoner had a jury trial, the judge lied to the jury twice when he said “you must enforce the law as I give it to you.” It is not the duty of the jury to enforce the law. It is the jury’s duty to see that justice is done. If the jury decides to uphold the law, it is not the often incorrect version given by the judge. It must be the law in the written statute passed by the Congress or state Assembly. If the jurors do not have the written statute there is reasonable doubt. The jury must rule not guilty. Every person who had a jury decision must be released, because the jury was informed incorrectly of its duty.

All present judges should be dismissed. Most, if not all of them should go to prison for violating their oath of office to support and defend the U. S. Constitution.


Larson: What advice would you give to young people considering going to law school and entering the legal profession so that they can make a difference for liberty? What paths are likely to put them in a good position to effect that kind of change; and what paths are they better off avoiding, if their main goal is to promote and defend freedom? There seem to be a variety of alternatives, such as the Public Defender‘s office, or private organizations, etc. but often there are tradeoffs to consider, such as the resources that will be available in these different organizations, or possible conflicts of interest caused by divided loyalties (e.g. the public defenders are ultimately court employees).

Heicklen: Good kids enter law school with the vision of upholding the law and helping people. They all graduate as criminals with the only intent to win cases, even by lying or distorting the law. In my criminal case for jury tampering in the US. federal district court in Manhattan, the U.S. attorneys forged the grand jury indictment document, since there never was a grand jury indictment, and the court accepted it. A federal speedy trial means within 70 days of indictment. My case for jury tampering dragged on for 17 months before it was dismissed, because the prosecutors could not produce any tampered juror. For details see: http://www.personal.psu.edu/jph13/Wood_4_17_12.html


Larson: Why did you choose, at a certain stage in your life, to shift your focus to jury rights activism at the street level rather than, say, getting heavily involved in Libertarian Party campaigns for public office; or churning out a bunch of journal articles as an academic; or becoming executive director of a think tank? What made you decide on that particular avenue for making a difference?

Heicklen: All my life I was involved in civil rights of one sort or another. Jury nullification was my last one. It occurred, because of my disgust with the courts, both state and federal in NY City. I did run for several offices on the Libertarian Party platform, and was even elected to some local offices in Centre County, PA. I published 2 books and 284 papers on chemistry and a few pamphlets on contract bridge. I founded and appointed myself executive director of Smart on Crime and Tyranny Fighters. I held numerous positions in the Libertarian Party. For details see: http://www.personal.psu.edu/jph13/ResumeJPH.html


Larson: What are some of the major lessons learned over the course of your activist career?

Heicklen: You need two characteristics to change the world.

  1. You must be stupid enough to think that you can do it.
  2. You must be persistent and not give up. It takes about 30 years to make changes.

You never convince the present generation. You are influencing the next generation.


Larson: Do you favor (a) having judges be periodically elected by the people, so that they can be held accountable; or (b) having them serve a lifetime term, so that they will be insulated from political pressures; or (c) some other system? Why?

Heicklen: In principle the people should choose the judges based on their performance in upholding their legal obligations. In practice the people’s vote has failed, because they choose judges base on how many people they incarcerate or punish instead of how well they deliver justice. The lifetime appointments fail because the judges ignore the laws and Constitution and do whatever they wish. Short of impeachment, there is no remedy. I suggest that fixed term appointments may be a solution. The judge does his or her job for a period of time (say 5 years) and then returns to practicing law.


Larson: What should be the role of juries in sentencing defendants? Currently, in the federal system, when juries are used at all (more often, the facts are set forth in a plea agreement) they mainly determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant and what the facts relevant to sentencing are, and then the judge makes the sentencing decision in accordance with the criteria set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

Heicklen: I think that this is OK, as long as the jurors are properly informed that their duty is to see that justice is done, which often means ignoring the law.


Larson: Do you see the use of plea bargaining in the vast majority of cases, with the likelihood of a much harsher sentence if the defendant gets convicted at trial, as a major threat to the use of jury rights to safeguard freedom? If so, what should be done about this?

Heicklen: Plea bargaining is unconstitutional. Only a jury can determine criminal guilt.


Larson: What should be crime victims’ role in the judicial and penal systems?

Heicklen: Probably not much. A victim is not likely to be unbiased.


Larson: Are there some ways that privatization of certain elements of the judicial and penal systems could allow market forces to be harnessed for good; or would this cause too many perverse incentives and inequities? For example, the bail bondsman system has sometimes been praised as a good way of ensuring that only the less risky defendants get out of jail pending trial, and are successfully caught if they jump bail. But of course, the poor can’t afford it. Some libertarians have proposed that competing private prisons, in which the prisoners could go to whatever prison they could afford and that would accept them, could give prisoners a more rehabilitative experience by offering certain amenities, such as better work opportunities, that are unavailable in the current bureaucratically-run system.

Heicklen: I am opposed to private prisons. They always become corrupt.

Julian Heicklen Interviewed by Nathan Larson is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Finally Got Them

Thursday, February 27th, 2014

Patrick Bradley shared this post via CopBlock.org’s submit page.

Now this isn’t a beating case or anything like that, but just simple basic rights being violated.

Hudson, New Hampshire Police are notorious for harassing people. From what I understand, it’s called a “training town,” meaning lots of rookies end up there to get street experience and then go elsewhere. I’ve been pulled over many, many times for nothing – things like my car sounded like it has an after market exhaust, speeding 2 to 3 miles over the speed limit on a downhill, etc. You know, things that they could let go, but know they are just targeting me because I’m a young male in some sort of car that draws attention. There aren’t as many minorities for them to harass, so we’re as good as black.

Well, on this night I finally caught them. It was 3 AM and I was driving in my tan 1977 Mercedes 280SE (very old man’s looking car) from the nearest city, Nashua, to my house in Windham. My current girlfriend and I went to Denny’s because we couldn’t sleep. Hudson is in between these towns. I took a legal left turn at a stop light and an approaching vehicle stopped to make a right turn on red. When driving in this particular part of town, I always check the cars to see if they are cops because of the aforementioned behavior and they are always on this stretch of road. Well, lo and behold, it was one of them. I made sure I stayed just under the speed limit and that my driving was tight. I kept my eye on my tripometer because they aren’t allowed to follow you for more than a mile and pull you over. They were doing their patented ‘follow really close to make you react’. Right at the mile mark, the blue lights turned on. When the officer approached, I had all my info ready. I had forgotten my wallet at my girlfriends house, so I didn’t have my ID. When he got to my car, I immediately asked him what I was being pulled over for because I knew I wasn’t doing anything wrong.

This is when it gets good. He immediately copped an attitude with me. “Excuse me, in my 28 years of being a cop I have never not informed somebody why they were being pulled over.” I said, “Okay,” and he responded with “your tail light was out.” Now this was believable since I had a short in my tail light that acted up sometimes. If that happened, that meant a shim I had in there fell out. I responded, “Oh I have a short in the light, I can fix it right now. May I get out and please fix it?” Now this is what I thought was interesting: He told me to stay in the car, then he looked at my info and noticed my inspection was out. I thought I didn’t have to have it inspected yet but had misunderstood the law. He came back and gave me the ‘I cut you a break” deal by not ticketing me on the tail light and not having my ID and giving me just a ticket for my inspection. Well, the ID is just a fix it ticket, I’ve been through that before. I just had to go to the police station within ten days and show them my ID. My car was not inspected in the proper time so that was legitimate in that sense, but for somebody who pulled me over for my tail light, I thought it was weird he wouldn’t have me fix it before I left. Later I checked my tail lights and found they were both working fine. He lied to pull me over in hopes to get me on something better. I’ll be going to court to fight the ticket since he had no legal right to pull me over so he would have never known my inspection was out. I’m sure the cop won’t even show up, but I hope he does so I can take it to trial and really smash it in. Then, I can make a formal complaint on the officer, because if a 28-year veteran will lie about something as small as that, what else would he lie about?

Patrick Bradley

Finally Got Them is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Ademo’s Wiretapping Convictions Overturned by New Hampshire Supreme Court

Tuesday, February 11th, 2014

Today, after more than a year of time and work, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled on my appeal for my felony wiretapping convictions, stating:

The evidence of the defendant’s willful mental state at the time he recorded the conversations was far from overwhelming. Thus, there is the very real prospect that the jury would have  returned different verdicts had it been properly instructed. Cf. United States v.  Paul, 37 F.3d 496, 500 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding the plain error test satisfied  where the district court improperly instructed the jury on the different mental  state requirements of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, for in doing so  the district court “created a substantial risk that [the defendant] was convicted  of voluntary manslaughter, even though the jury may have believed the killing  was neither intentional nor extremely reckless”). To allow the convictions to  stand under these circumstances “would seriously affect the fairness and  integrity of judicial proceedings.” Guay, 162 N.H. at 384. Accordingly, we reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial.

I’d like to congratulate Brandon Ross, a Manchester (NH) attorney, on this ruling. It’s more than just a personal relief to me, it’s the fruit of Brandon’s labor and his desire to see justice served. Brandon came to visit me days after my conviction in Valley Street Jail, offering to conduct my appeal pro bono. All I had to do was pay for the trial transcripts, which I was lucky enough to raise the funds for via donations – a very special thanks to all the donors, much love.  I haven’t had to spend one ounce of my time on this matter, so the victory is all his.

That being said, I’d like to again thank all the donors who contributed over $1,200 for the trial transcripts. Today I’m able to breathe a little easier knowing that a minor police interaction won’t lead to a prison cell for the next 4 years, due to the (now voided) suspended sentence. Though this is a huge victory to me personally (not used to that, they are few and far between), I’m still not in the clear. The case is headed back to superior court, presumably Michael Valentine, and I could be charged again. At that time, I’d face another trial.

Hopefully those in charge of making such decisions decide against bringing me back into a courtroom. Only time will tell.

Visit THIS META POST for all blog posts, videos and more about my wiretapping case (complied mostly by Pete Eyre). Below is a video playlist of related videos to this case.

Ademo’s Wiretapping Convictions Overturned by New Hampshire Supreme Court is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Bad cops are our best recruiters, says Copwatch filmmaker

Monday, February 10th, 2014

This video was first posted to YouTube.com/RidleyReport on February 07th, 2014. The raw video from which the audio was taken is visible below.

Sponsor: http://NHLiberty.org – Bad cops are our best recruiters, says Copwatch filmmaker. Jacob Crawford is the guy making this statement.

This vid is (or is supposed to be) part of the Porcfest 2013 illustrated speeches playlist. Click here to watch in sequence:

Like what you see? You can donate to the Ridley Report most easily using Bitcoin. I now take Litecoin too…
See my latest BTC and LTC addresses, at

I generally keep the wallet pretty empty…for security reasons. So plz do not be shy about letting me know you’ve donated. That way I can evacuate or spend the BTC’s….

How to buy an ad – on the Ridley Report


On June 19, 2013 at 2hr session was held at the 10th annual http://porcfest.com called “Eroding the Police State”, which included on a panel individuals active with Cop Block, Cop Watch, and Peaceful Streets. The goal? A reality where the need for these projects is non-existent.


Props to http://youtube.com/redpillrecording for capturing/sharing this video – if you liked it, feel free to visit their channel and subscribe and/or donate

Bad cops are our best recruiters, says Copwatch filmmaker is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

What Happens When You Talk to Cops Like They Talk to You

Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014

Amanda Billyrock shared this post via CopBlock.org’s submit page.

Free Staters holding the mirror up, so to speak, of police encounters by turning the tables. Kind of funny, kind of cool, and kind of inspiring.

What Happens When You Talk to Cops Like They Talk to You is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Ransom Levied Then Rescinded

Thursday, January 9th, 2014


Have a not-too-favorable interaction with a police employee? Check out this page: http://copblock.org/29382/so-youve-been-wronged-by-a-police-employee and consider letting others know via http://copblock.org/submit The more we each speak the truth and look out for each other the better we’ll all be.





Ransom Levied Then Rescinded is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Amanda Billyrock Caged at Belknap County Jail

Saturday, December 14th, 2013

UPDATE: Amanda posted the following to her Facebook profile shortly around 2:50PM EST:


Amanda BillyRock was kidnapped in the early morning hours of Sat., Dec. 14, 2013 by an unknown Laconia PD employee (603.524.5257) and is now being held at the Belknap Co. Jail (603.527.5480) based on threats not yet disclosed. What is known is that Amanda is a vocal advocate and practioner of peaceful, consensual interactions.

Belknap County Jail


The text below was authored by William R. Toler at IndieRegister.com. The informative write-up is cross-posted here in the hopes that it is read and acted upon by more people.


free-amanda-billyrockby William R. Toler

Anarchist activist and libertarian femme fatale Amanda Billyrock will be sitting in a cage this weekend.

According to Ademo Freeman of Cop Block, Billyrock was soicalizing with him and others when she was arrested. He says the only video of the arrest was taken with her phone.

A call to the Belknap County “Department of Corrections” wasn’t very enlightening. The individual I spoke to said that he “couldn’t” tell me what the charges were against her, but did say that there was no bail. He added that “she probably refused bail.”

“I believe she was arrested for not answering questions, like what’s your address?,” Freeman said. “So they are not telling us the charges because a) they don’t want to or b) they haven’t decided yet.”

So…basically, it sounds like a charge of “contempt of cop” for standing her ground and not answering questions.

There are also no details on when she will make her first appearance, but it will likely be Monday morning. Which means (as the lede says) she’ll be sitting in a cage all weekend.

Belknap County has a rather poor website and doesn’t provide any information on detainees. The mission statement of the “Department of Corrections” is (in part):

…to provide protection of society through the detention and confinement of pre-trial detainees and post-trial confines in a safe and secure condition.

Though I’ve not met her personally (yet), I would contend that she is no danger to society.  A danger to psychopathic government employees who wish to impose their supposed authority over free people? Definitely. But not a danger to society.

Billyrock recently moved to New Hampshire for the Free State Project after participating at the 2013 Porcfest. She is scheduled to be a speaker at North Carolina’s Liberty Liberty Fest this coming March.

She also has a YouTube channel where she posts liberty-based videos, including her artistic rendition of Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson.

Belknap County Department of Corrections
(603) 527-5480
Superintendent: Daniel P. Ward, Sr.
Deputy Superintendent: David Berry

Amanda Billyrock Caged at Belknap County Jail is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Robin Hood of Keene Cases DISMISSED!!

Wednesday, December 4th, 2013

The text below, originally posted to FreeKeene.com, comes to us from Ian Freeman:


Robin Hood and the Merry Men and Women are victorious over the lying, corrupt “City of Keene” in BOTH Robin Hood cases!  The first civil case was filed by “the City” back in May seeking a preliminary injunction against the six named respondents, in hopes banning them from being near, speaking to, or recording video of the parking enforcers.  It was heard over three full days of court “evidentiary hearings” later in the summer and afterwards, heroic free speech attorney Jon Meyer filed a motion to dismiss the case.

Attorney Meyer’s motion has now been granted in a 17-page notice of decision from Cheshire “superior” court judge John C Kissinger Jr., which also dismisses the second civil case against us that was filed by “the City” in September,  seeking monetary “damages”.  The second suit proved what we all knew and the city people had originally denied with their first lawsuit – that ultimately this was about their lost parking revenue.

Ultimately, the Robin Hooders have been completely vindicated.  The city people were lying (as is typical of governments) when they claimed Robin Hooders were harassing, intimidating, and threatening their parking enforcement agents.  Again, the proof that they were lying is that no Robin Hooder has ever been arrested for “harassment”.  Even if Robin Hooders were saying nasty things (no evidence of that was presented in court, and I’ve never seen it happen), the job description of the parking enforcers makes it clear they must put up with “mental and verbal abuse” from members of the public.  The city people tried to illegally oppress our right to free speech and to hold government agents accountable for their actions, and the court made the right decision and dismissed their frivolous, aggressive, unconstitutional cases against us.

In the notice of decision, judge Kissinger notes that the free speech rights of the Robin Hooders outweigh all of the claims of “the City”:

The Court agrees with the Respondents that their free speech rights under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution will be violated by permitting the City to move forward on any of the claims in this action or the more recent action or by granting the requested preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

In the rest of the notice, Kissinger defeats the ridiculous claims of “the City”, rejecting the claim of “tortious interference”, denying their request for an injunction, and dismissing the second suit for damages from “intentional interference with employment contractual relations and negligence”.

Will “the City” appeal the case to the supreme court?  Given their past history of blowing taxpayer dollars on frivolous appeals, there is a good chance they will.  They don’t know how to handle taking “no” for an answer.  Speaking of wasting your tax dollars, we’ll be digging into the financials of this case to see just how much was spent hiring their fancy private attorneys to handle the Robin Hood case.

Meanwhile, Robin Hooders are still on the streets of Keene, saving countless motorists from the aggression of the parking enforcement bureaucracy!  We won’t go away until they do.  So far, one enforcer quit over the Summer.  Will the remaining two follow suit?  Will “the city” be able to find anyone willing to fill the empty position?  Will they come up with some ridiculous ordinance against Robin Hooding?  Stay tuned to FreeKeene.com for continued updates on the Robin Hood saga.

Robin Hood Ruling 2013.12.03


Robin Hood of Keene Cases DISMISSED!! is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Former Manchester, NH Police Sgt. Steven Coco’s Plea Bargain Denied by Judge

Wednesday, November 13th, 2013

John Brady shared this post via CopBlock.org’s submit page.

November 12, 2013, former Manchester Police sergeant Steven Coco was in Hillsborough County Superior Court – North for what he thought was going to be a plea and sentencing hearing for running over two teens in Bedford in 2012 while using an undercover Manchester Police SUV, and leaving the scene. Both teens were injured, and one suffered bleeding in the brain.

Judge Abramson asked the state for a burden of proof as to the evidence against the former Manchester Police sergeant. After hearing the state’s proof, the judge denied the plea agreement between the special prosecutor and the defendant where he would have plead no contest to a single misdemeanor charge instead of two felony charges and numerous misdemeanors. The judge told the state and the defense that there is plenty of evidence against the former Manchester Police sergeant, said the felony charges will stand, and encouraged the state to seek an indictment since the plea deal for a misdemeanor was not accepted by the court. She did set a dispositional hearing to schedule a trial of the former cop who knowingly, recklessly endangered the lives of the two innocent victims he plowed down then left to die on the street.

Coco was fired from the Manchester Police Department when Bedford Police notified Manchester Police Chief David Mara that one of his cause unmarked narco vehicles was involved in a hit and run. A special prosecutor was assigned to avoid a conflict of interest because of Sgt. Coco and the many cases heard over the years by the Hillsborough County Attorney. If convicted of the two class B felonies, Coco faces three-and-a-half to seven years in state prison on each of the counts, and a $4,000 fine on each felony. If the court would have accepted the misdemeanor plea, he may have gotten no time and a suspended fine, with a maximum of 12 months in the Hillsborough County Department of Corrections (Valley Street Jail).

Former Manchester, NH Police Sgt. Steven Coco’s Plea Bargain Denied by Judge is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights