“We Will Record” Song

by Agent on April 4, 2012 in Outreach | Comments { 0 }

You may know the work of Sam A. Robrin from his “Thanks But No Tanks” song that shares the name of the very popular Fr33 Agents campaign, or the Chronic Christmas Carols that he wrote for the Shire Choir. The “We Will Record” campaign is thrilled to announce that Mr. Robrin has used his creative talents to write We will Record to the tune of “I Will Survive” by Gloria Gaynor.

This song will be handy to know if you’re ever feeling musical while being confronted by bullies with badges for recording.

We WILL RECORD

Up till now, you cops had citizens deceived—
It was just your word against our word, and guess whose word got believed.
But so many innocents told tales of lawmen getting rough,
I got tough,
I finally said, “Enough!”

I have the means
To put an end
To the corruption that’s become a universal trend.
You threw down against the people, now you’re up against the wall.
Cops should be held to higher standards, they’ve been held to none at all.

Now let’s see you smash a child’s face into the street,
Blow out the brains of someone handcuffed helpless at your feet.
You casually made people die,
As of today, don’t even try,
You may believe you’re little gods,
But don’t believe you can defy
The camera’s eye—
We will record!
I’ve got a pocket camera any working stiff can well afford.
It’s the handiest of tools
When it’s you cops who break the rules.
We will record!
You bet your badge We will record!

[music]

You think that you can stop us standing up to you—
That if you maintain the chicanery, there’s nothing we can do.
You’ve grown complacent in your power and you think you own us all.
You’ve gone too far—
We’ll show the whole world what you are.
We’ll capture truth
On video
And when they see it on the Web, even your sycophants will know
That they can’t ignore the evidence about the lies they feel.
You’ll have no choice except to measure up to your perceived ideal.

So wield your clubs,
Unleash your dogs—
And your atrocities will be depicted on our blogs.
And the pathetic egos that you all so smugly sanctify
Are going to topple—
The camera’s staunch, unblinking eye
Doesn’t lie.

We will record!
I have a camera and a thousand activists like me on board,
With tens of millions coming yet—
Then you’ll know “Quis custodiet . . .” *
We will record!
We will record!

Just watch your step—
“Don’t Tread On Me”!
I’ll have proof of your own lawlessness for all the world to see.
When every person you’re harassing is potentially a spy,
You’ll start to act like
Boundaries that you deny
Still apply.

We will record!
Streaming your deeds direct to YouTube, where they’re permanently stored,
And with the truth exposed at last,
Consign corruption to the past.
We will record!
You bet your lives We will record.
We will record!

Read full story

Blatant Cases of Judicial Abuse Signal Need for Constitutional Amendments

by Agent on March 19, 2012 in Uncategorized | Comments { 0 }

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 19, 2012

Media Contacts:

Bradley Jardis, former police officer, 603-205-6003,bbraduma@gmail.com
Rep. George Lambert, R-Hillsborough 27, 603-809-5115,marchon@gmail.com
Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Merrimack 13, 603-315-9002,jr@jrhoell.com

BLATANT CASES OF JUDICIAL ABUSE SIGNAL NEED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
CACR 11 and CACR 22 Would Rein-In Judicial Overreach and Restore the Balance of Power to the People of New Hampshire

KEENE, N.H.—Two state representatives and a former police officer are calling attention to the apparent abuse of power by a New Hampshire district court judge and other officials around him in an effort to showcase the need for two constitutional amendments designed to rein-in judicial authority that are planned for a House vote this week.

On Wednesday, the N.H. House is expected to vote on CACR 11, which would require the governor and council to reappoint judges every seven years, but only if they have exhibited good behavior. The House is also expected to vote on CACR 22, which would restore the Legislature’s full authority to control lawmaking in New Hampshire and limit the administrative rule-making authority of the Judicial Branch so that it is subject to Legislative approval—just like the current rule-making authority of the Executive Branch.<!–more–>

Both amendments are designed to reverse the impact of Part 2, Article 73-a of the N.H. Constitution, which the courts have used in many cases since the article’s enactment in 1978 to protect judges’ assumed authority within the courtroom and beyond to advance rules that have the “force and effect of law.” Some have even proposed that 73-a makes the Chief Justice the “administrative head” of the Legislature, which is also known as the “General Court.” The amendments would help restore the separation of powers required by Part 1, Article 37.

“We’ve seen judges write orders that directly violate the constitution’s freedom-of-speech, freedom-of-the-press or right-to-bear-arms provisions, and because of 73-a, those orders have the full ‘force and effect of law’ and put innocent people in jail,” said State Rep. George Lambert, R-Hills. 27. “I want to see us return to the New Hampshire I learned about in school, where judges make decisions that protect the rights of people based on the clear language of the state constitution. That’s why we need these two simple fixes to our constitutional language.”

Former Police Officer Bradley Jardis of Dover, N.H., is now acting as Attorney-in-Fact for Jason Talley of Keene, N.H., a journalist who was arrested for wearing a camera on his belt into a courtroom after a judge issued rules under Article 73-a that said no cameras carried by members of the public were allowed into the building. Talley argues that he was carrying the camera as part of his Part 1, Article 22 N.H. Constitutional right to the freedom of the press, a freedom that was recently upheld by the August 2011 Glik decision in the First Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, because the New Hampshire rules on cameras have the apparent “force and effect of law” under Article 73-a, Talley was arrested on charges of contempt, among other charges. The trial is scheduled for April.

Jardis isn’t stopping with the apparent abuse inherent in Talley’s case, however. He noted how the court rules regarding cameras that led to Mr. Talley’s arrest surfaced just three days after Keene District Court Judge Edward Burke was filmed on tape asking a Bailiff to arrest Adam Mueller of Keene for threatening him. Mr. Mueller spent two days in jail as a result of Burke’s accusation under RSA 640:3(b), Improper Influence. The problem with Burke’s assertion is that Mueller’s videotape shows the videographer simply asking the judge questions. On the video, Mueller politely asks Judge Burke about the judge’s decision to jail Beau Davis of Keene for five days on a contempt charge for simply refusing to remove his hat in Burke’s courtroom. Mueller is heard asking on the video, “Do you think people want to pay for someone to be in jail for five days for wearing a hat? It’s kind of ridiculous to waste taxpayer money on that, don’t you think?”

After his arrest, Mueller attempted to pursue Burke on a charge of False Reports to Law Enforcement under RSA 641:4, I, but that charge was never brought. Mueller says the event is a clear sign of a double standard when it comes to public officials. In his video chronicling the incident, he notes that he has a friend currently serving six months in jail for doing the same thing Burke was filmed doing.

Video of the Mueller incident is available video here at and video of the Davis incident is available here.

“I typically do not like the activism tactics of some of the people who confront Judge Burke and other officials in the Keene area, but as a former police officer, I find it inexcusable that government officials think they can get away with treating people so poorly simply because they are politically unpopular or annoying,” Jardis said. “I am willing to stake my reputation on this issue because I truly believe it is the right thing to do. After seeing this, it’s definitely time to amend 73-a and rebalance government authority so it protects the rights of the People.”

Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Merrimack 13, who has been involved with Jardis’s latest efforts to call attention to judicial abuse, noted the recent action of Judge Timothy Vaughan in Grafton Superior Court in December. At the time, Judge Vaughan issued a restraining order against Bradley Jardis and Tommy Mozingo, and anyone associated with them, prohibiting them from lawfully carrying weapons onto any campus of the University System of New Hampshire under penalty of contempt. The judge also ordered Jardis and Mozingo to post a copy of the restraining order on a specific Web site, a violation of their freedom of speech.

“With 73-a in place, judges are assuming unbridled powers to order people to do practically anything they want them to do, and they are jailing many peaceful dissenters,” Hoell said. “This is a clear sign that the constitution needs amendment to fix this. At the same time, if we cannot amend the constitution, it may be time for the House to introduce charges of impeachment. It is clear to me that some judges are abusing the authority delegated to them, and their abuses include but are not limited to corruption, malpractice and maladministration.”

For more information, please contact the three media sources listed at the top of this press release.

Read full story

Carlos Miller: NH Judge Caught On Video Ordering False Arrest

by Agent on March 14, 2012 in vs Judge Burke | Comments { 0 }
This post by Carlos Miller originally appeared on Pixiq and featured the video by Cop Block’s Ademo Freeman. See it at the bottom of the post.

Adam Mueller, aka Ademo Freeman, stood inside the Keene District Courthouse in New Hampshire, waiting for Judge Edward Burke to step inside so he could ask him a question.

Less than two minutes later, he was arrested for threatening the judge, a felony charge called“improper influence.”

But Mueller had his camera rolling, so he captured the entire exchange on video.

And there is absolutely no evidence that he threatened Burke.

Here is that exchange, but you can also hear it for yourself in the above video:

(Judge Burke enters the building)

Mueller: “Judge Burke, can I ask you a few questions about a hat … and how that constitutes contempt.”

(Burke ignores him and heads for the stairs)

Mueller: “You think people want to pay for somebody to be in jail for five days for wearing a hat?”

(Burke continues to ignore him as he walks up the stairs with Mueller walking behind him)

Mueller: “It’s kind of ridiculous to waste tax-payer money on something like that, isn’t it?

(Burke reaches the top of the stairs)

Mueller: “Sir, I just want to have a conversation.”

(Burke opens the door and motions to the bailiff)

Burke: “Bailiff, bailiff, this person is threatening me about a decision I just made.”

Mueller: “I’m not threatening you ….”

Mueller is then taken into custody and thrown in jail where he spent two nights before he was bailed on a donated $5,000 bond.

On Wednesday, after viewing the above video, the district attorney’s office dropped the charges against him

But that hasn’t solved the issue that Burke had Mueller falsely arrested.

And it hasn’t solved the issue that Burke directed a court order that now forbids photography or videography in the Keene courthouse.

According to the court order, which was filed July 1, 2011, three days after Mueller’s arrest.

In recent months certain members of the public have caused disruptions of the court’s ability to conduct business in Keene. In addition to their refusal to abide by court rules related to the conduct of trials and conduct in the courtroom in general, these members of the public have also congregated in the court’s lobby for extended periods of time making it difficult for other members of the public to conduct business with the court and, in particular, creating conditions and disturbances which have obstructed court staff from performing their duties in an orderly way.

Additionally, these members of the public have, on occasion, accosted the presiding judge as he enters and leaves the building in which the court is housed, creating an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation and a legitimate fear for the safety and well-being of the judicial and nonjudicial staff at this court.

Based upon these conditions and facts, and mindful of the holding of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in State v. Moquin, 105 N.H. 9 at 11 (1963) that,

” … it is the duty and responsibility of courts to be alert to protect the judicial processes from being brought into disrepute and to act vigorously when confronted with acts or conduct which tend to obstruct or interfere with the due and orderly administration of justice … ”

it is ordered as follows:

1. No cameras or audio equipment may be used at any time in the court’s lobby or anywhere in the public area of the court’s leased premises;

There are some exceptions, which can be read by clicking on the court order in the above link.

William Toler of the Independent Register reported that the ban may be unconstitutional.

“A blanket ban likely would be unconstitutional,” says David Hudson from the First Amendment Center. “Trial judges are granted discretion to determine whether cameras might unduly prejudice court proceedings but generally they must make particularized findings, such as whether there would be prejudice, whether the ban is no broader than necessary and whether there are reasonable alternatives to not permitting coverage.”

As I’ve reported in previous stories, the tensions between Burke and the Free Staters have been ongoing for the past few years as Keene becomes a growing community of activists.

Many of the activists have long accused Burke of being a bully, but it is also obvious that they try their best to test his authority by not removing caps in the courtroom or refusing to disclose their name when arrested.

And those incidents are debatable (we all have our issues we fight for and those don’t rank up there for me).

But here we have a clear case of a judge having a citizen falsely arrested on felony charges.

That issue is not debatable. Burke blatantly lied about Mueller’s actions.

With a judge like that, there is simply no expectation of justice in his courtroom.

Read full story
Links

State Attorney Refusing to Dismiss or File Charges

by Agent on March 14, 2012 in Uncategorized | Comments { 0 }
Read full story
Links

Ex-Fullerton Cop Charged With Destruction Of Evidence After Destroying Audio Recorder

by Agent on March 14, 2012 in Uncategorized | Comments { 0 }
Read full story

Anonymous Lawyers & Hackers Assisting Talley

by Agent on March 8, 2012 in Courts | Comments { 0 }
This post by Brad Jardis originally appeared at FreeKeene.com.

This blog is made pursuant to NH Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6 (c) (6) as the people of New Hampshire should be made aware of the danger to the public interest.

-/-

I’ve heard rumblings that the hacker group Antisec has been “DOXing” public officials in the Keene area.  I even heard that Judge Burke had been “DOXed” due to the groups displeasure over his interaction with Carlos Miller.

Given the recent threat against Judge Burke, I will make sure the NH Attorney General is made aware of this.

I just happen to be at the AG’s office yesterday making a formal complaint for a criminal investigation into the court orders enacted following a judge being caught on camera committing a crime.  The investigator I met with was cordial, polite, and friendly.  Out of respect to him, I will not repeat anything that he said to me.

I also asked that the investigator relay my request that the Attorney General’s Office should assume control of State v. Jason Talley and dismiss his charges.

Why dismiss his charges?  Because Jason’s charges stemmed from Part II, Article 73-a of the New Hampshire Constitution being abused:

[Art.] 73-a. [Supreme Court, Administration.] The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of all the courts. He shall, with the concurrence of a majority of the supreme court justices, make rules governing the administration of all courts in the state and the practice and procedure to be followed in all such courts. The rules so promulgated shall have the force and effect of law.

Bad timing for the New Hampshire Judicial Branch, considering Representative Kingsbury  (Belknap 4) is pushing to take this power away from the judiciary althogether.  I know of five state representatives who are now briefed on what happened to Adam Mueller and Jason Talley and how it could implicate a massive change in New Hampshire constitutional law.

I’d like to publicly state that although I have nothing to do with Antisec, I do not disagree with their premise that public officials (who are supposed to be held to a higher standard of transparency than the rest of us according to Part I, Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution) should be publicly identified to their neighbors.  In fact, all of them should be…  “at all times”.  That includes when they walk into a public building and are confronted by a member of the free press.

[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.

A person has every right to know if their neighbor is someone who feels wasting taxpayer’s hard-earned money on imprisoning someone for simply wearing a hat indoors is an acceptable way for a government employee to treat a citizen in the “land of the free.”

Furthermore, a person has every right to know that if anyone questions their neighbor about their unabashed disrespect of Part I, Article 4 of the New Hampshire Constitution later that they too will go to jail, in the “land of the free.”

[Art.] 4. [Rights of Conscience Unalienable.] Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.

If I had a neighbor that was doing that, I’d tell him that he should stop wasting that $80ish/day on the backs of county taxpayers to protect his ego when New Hampshire homeless shelters frequently turn people away in the winter.  I’d then tell them until they stop treating people and the Constitution with such disrespect that they were not welcome at my home or welcome to associate with me.

I, of course, would never know that my neighbor was doing such tyrannical things if it wasn’t for independent journalists like Adam Mueller.

In solidarity with Judge Burke, I’ve decided to DOX myself:

Bradley Jardis
42 Main Street #27
Dover, NH  03820
BBradUMA@gmail.com = e-mail
603-205-6003 = phone

Feel free to text me, call me, send me mail, whatever.  Unlike Judge Burke, your asking me questions about this case or bruising my delicate sensibilities won’t end you up in jail.

In fact, if the New Hampshire Courts have mistreated you, I’d like to know about it.

E-mail is best, please.

-/-

I’ve been receiving some anonymous emails from whom I presume are attorneys, giving me suggestions on how to do things better.  There have also been multiple recent discussions regarding getting the ACLU involved.

Jason Talley’s case is about to uncover quite a few things.

I’ll keep you informed.

 

Robert T. Mittelholzer, Esquire, Executive Secretary 
Committee on Judicial Conduct 
74 Exeter Road 
Newmarket, NH  03857
Phone: (603) 292-1825
Fax: (603) 292-1827
rmittelholzer@nhjcc.com

Read full story
Video

Did Ademo Deserve Jail for 2 Days for Improper Influence of Judge Burke?

by Agent on March 8, 2012 in Cages, Copparazzi, Courts | Comments { 0 }

Cop Block’s Ademo Freeman on his extralegal caging and the further crackdown on cameras in cheshire county courts.

Read full story

Stop Judicial Child Abuse in NH Family Courts

by Agent on March 8, 2012 in Media | Comments { 0 }

judicialccchildabuse.com picked up the story about State Rep. George Lambert authorizing four subpoenas of N.H. judges who may be involved in conspiracy:

N.H. State Rep. George Lambert, Brad Jardis, and Jason Talley are defenders of freedom, advocates of liberty, and strict constructionists of the Constitution.

Please watch this very important video wherein Jardis and Lambert breathe life into the subpoenas of 4 N.H. Judges who may be complicit in fraud and conspiracy to deprive a citizen of his liberty.

There may be serious implications under Title 42 of the U.S. Code, especially if it is determined that the Judge that ordered the arrest did so while he was *not* acting in the capacity of “judge.”

We ask the question:  If a judge orders the arrest of a citizen based on a false accusation, while he is not working as “judge,” then has he violated the U.S. Code?

Followup question:  Is a judge who is *not* acting in capacity of “judge” protected by “absolute judicial immunity?”  Can he be sued under Title 42?

 

Read full story

Edward Burke Committed a Crime

by Agent on March 8, 2012 in Courts | Comments { 0 }
The following was first published by my legal agent, Brad Jardis. He’s a heck of a guy and you can support his efforts (which support my efforts) by donating to the Jardis = Justice campaign.

Below he explains how a sitting district court judge committed a crime and may get away with it. This originally appeared at FreeKeene.com.

In this state it is a crime to falsely report to law enforcing authorities that an individual has committed an offense.  Specifically RSA 641:4 “False Reports to Law Enforcement” prohibits this type of conduct.

The law reads in part:

A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he:

I. Knowingly gives or causes to be given false information to any law enforcement officer with the purpose of inducing such officer to believe that another has committed an offense; or

Court bailiffs are law enforcement officers with limited arrest jurisdiction as allowed bythis law.

When the bailiffs acted on a report of a “threat” by Mr. Burke, they took enforcement action based on a belief that Adameo had committed an offense.  The bailiffs based their probable cause to arrest Adameo on  information coming from a circuit court judge who is well versed in the law and has undoubtedly sat in judgement of dozens of trials for misdemeanor criminal threatening. Specifically, Mr. Burke stated “that’s a criminal offense.”

It wasn’t…  not even close.

In my opinion as someone who has applied for hundreds of arrest warrants, there is plenty of probable cause that Mr. Burke has violated this law when he claimed that Adameo Freeman “threatened” him and that his threat constituted “a criminal offense.”  The video is proof positive that there was absolutely no threat whatsoever.  In fact, Adameo was polite, courteous, respectful, and clearly was acting as a member of the press.

An innocent man spent two days in jail for this false report.

When Mr. Burke is charged, as I truly believe he will be (there’s just no way politics or owed favors can cover this one up), his sentence should include at least two days in a cage.

Two days in a cage would be commensurate with the days Adameo wrongfully spent locked up as a result of the false reporting Mr. Burke engaged in.

Read full story

Illinois judge: law barring recording police is unconstitutional

by Agent on March 3, 2012 in Uncategorized | Comments { 0 }

 covers today’s news from Illinois for Ars Technica:

In Cook County today Judge Stanley J. Sacks declared Illinois’ eavesdropping law—which is one of the toughest in the nation—unconstitutional in his ruling in the case of Christopher Drew, who was charged with the felony crime in 2009.

The eavesdropping law prohibits citizens from making audio or visual recordings of others without every recorded person’s explicit consent. Sixty-year-old artist Drew audio-recorded his interaction with a police officer who was arresting him for selling art patches at the side of the road. A police officer found the tape recorder and Drew found himself with a Class 1 felony charge, which carries up to 15 years in prison. “That’s one step below attempted murder,” Drew said in a January interview with the New York Times.

A citizen’s right to record police has certainly been a contentious topic of debate recently. The First Circuit US Court of Appeals has considered whether making recordings of police with the recording device in plain sight is considered a secret recording or not, and a Miami photojournalist was arrested and had his videos of police activity deleted while he was detained.

In this particular case, however, Judge Sacks seemed to declare Illinois’ law unconstitutional not because it’s a citizen’s right to record interactions between the police and the public, but because the law was too far-reaching.

“The Illinois Eavesdropping Statute potentially punishes as a felony a wide array of wholly innocent conduct,” noted Judge Sacks in his opinion, according to the Sun-Times. “A parent making an audio recording of their child’s soccer game, but in doing so happens to record nearby conversations, would be in violation of the Eavesdropping Statute.”

Read full story