NEVERTAKEAPLEA.org - No victim. No crime.

By Derrick J. Freeman

I am defending my self against aggression by agents of the state. On April 9, I will be standing in a courtroom with the men who kidnapped and pepper sprayed me. Virtually everyone participating in the trial except for me receives paychecks from the same organization: “the State of New Hampshire.” The charges against me are “Obstructing Government Administration” (up to 1 year in a cage and $1000 fine), “Resisting Arrest” (up to 1 year in a cage and $1000 fine), and “Refusing to Process” (up to $1,200 in fines).

Sun-Tzu says in The Art of War that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. I have prepared myself for this trial over these last months, and I intend to win by speaking the truth. The agents of the state who kidnapped me have boxed themselves into a corner by allowing themselves to resort to violence and force rather than words and persuasion. In that sense, I have already won.

But in order to get the job done, I am asking for your support. If you value individual liberty, help me to throw myself into one major cog in the machine: the courts. $200 will cover my food and rent while I spend my days before court organizing papers, videos, and practicing speeches, witness questioning, and contingency plans. Thanks you to those of you who have supported me up to this point, and thanks in advance to those of you who are just beginning. Without you, achieving this victory would not be possible.

Editor’s note: to donate visit http://www.gofundme.com/hyi9k

Recently I was found guilty in my Chalking 8 trial, while highlighting those bogus charges we (Pete and I) met Frank and Mike, who took this video of Manchester Police Officer Murphy. The video went viral and received attention from several news outlets. Instead of taking a serious look at the actions caught on tape the city went into defense mode.

The Police, school and local government officials sought to criminalize Frank, Mike and myself. They expelled Frank from school, charged Mike as an adult (over a teenage fight) and charged me with three counts of wiretapping. Crimes the state says justifies caging me, at your expense, for 21 years.

I’ve been through this before in Greenfield, MA and am confident I can present my case, logically. The problem I face in Manchester that I didn’t have in Greenfield is the personal vendetta those in Manchester seem to have for me. After all, I was given the max sentence (with 10 months of it stayed for 2 years good behavior) for ‘resisting’ my arrest.

Recently I was found guilty in my Chalking 8 trial, while highlighting those bogus charges we (Pete and I) met Frank and Mike, who took this video of Manchester Police Officer Murphy. The video went viral and received attention from several news outlets. Instead of taking a serious look at the actions caught on tape the city went into defense mode.

The Police, school and local government officials sought to criminalize Frank, Mike and myself. They expelled Frank from school, charged Mike as an adult (over a teenage fight) and charged me with three counts of wiretapping. Crimes the state says justifies caging me, at your expense, for 21 years.

I’ve been through this before in Greenfield, MA and am confident I can present my case, logically. The problem I face in Manchester that I didn’t have in Greenfield is the personal vendetta those in Manchester seem to have for me. After all, I was given the max sentence (with 10 months of it stayed for 2 years good behavior) for ‘resisting’ my arrest.

With that in mind I’ve thought long and hard about how I’d like to tackle this case. I’ve done all the homework, reading up on New Hampshire’s wiretapping law, talking with lawyers, brainstorming ideas with fellow activist and more and it’s come down to one thing, funding. Which is why I made this video asking for your help.

As stated in the video, I think a lawyer would be beneficial to ensure I have fair pre-trial hearings and ‘proper’ (in their eyes) procedure during trial. Considering this will be an expectation of privacy trial – and that public officials have none – it will be more difficult that my Greenfield trial. Yet, a win here could do wonders for activists in the “Shire” attempting to change coercive government actions.

That being said, I also know, and appreciate, the offensive tactic as well and when done properly, is mightier than the current justice system. In terms of risk, I end up taking more with this tactic, as these actions will be done outside the court room. The best part of this strategy is that the actions the government is trying to distract you from – excessive force, deletion of evidence and criminalization of those who question government – will be front and center. As this issue goes further back than just one phone call, the Manchester police have gotten away with murder (literally) for a while now.

Regardless of how this fund raiser goes, I’ll be in court, speaking the truth and defending my position on filming, recording and monitoring public officials. I would greatly appreciate you donating to either cause as it would help me (and other activists) further the message of police accountability. You can also buy CopBlock.org swag, which help funds our CopBlock activities, or contact me for video intro/outro’s and power post. For those unable to donate, sharing CopBlock.org content and social networks is just as good as FRN’s and I need/appreciate your support as well.

Thanks in advance.

—–

—–

Ademo’s First Hearing (video) – CopBlock.org
CopBlock Founder faces 20 years – Photography Is NOT a Crime
Ademo Responds to Charges by CopBlock
Manchester’s Chalking 8 by Cop Block
High School Student Catches Excessive Force on Video by Cop Block
Video shows West High student’s arrest by Mark Hayward in the Union Leader
West High student arrest video goes viral by Kathryn Marchocki in the Union Leader
Teen on school arrest: ‘I was goofing around’ by Mark Hayward in the Union Leader
Manchester students say videotape of arrest was not planned by Shawne Wickham in the Union

Interviews with Ademo Freeman & Pete Eyre of Cop Block

along with Free Talk Live’s Ian Freeman at Cheshire County House of Corrections

The purpose of nevertakeaplea.org is to encourage defendants in victimless crime cases to consider exercising their constitutional right to a trial. If more victimless crime defendants took this approach, the system would overload which, hopefully, would cause prosecutors to focus on crimes with victims.

With this mission statement, nevertakeaplea has drawn criticism even within the liberty community. Recently, an activist posted on Facebook: “I’m going to be blunt. Never take a plea is bad advice. Trying to exhaust the court is a high risk, low reward strategy. It’s like throwing people into a wood chipper.”

When it comes to plea deals, our stance at nevertakeaplea is that it’s a deeply personal decision and each person should decide voluntarily what is best for his/her unique situation. There should be no pressure from activists to reject a plea deal nor coercion from the state to accept one.

Recently, on a visit to The Shire, I sat down with Ademo Freeman and Pete Eyre of Cop Block (www.copblock.org), to discuss their views on plea deals.

While in The Shire attending National Chalk the Police Day in Manchester (www.copblock.org/chalk), I drove over to Keene to visit with Free Talk Live’s Ian Freeman, nearing the end of a sentence at the Cheshire County House of Corrections for an act of civil disobedience (http://freekeene.com/2010/07/19/raw-video-of-mass-arrests/). Ian explained his position on never take a plea. (Apologies in advance for the audio. There are some freeze frames as well where the jail video phone froze.)

Clyde Voluntaryist

Written by Ademo Freeman

This years Chalk the Police Day has come and gone. Don’t worry, we’ll do it again next year. Below you’ll find some links to the “chalking 8? as well as some other materials for Chalk the Police Day 2011. This was the video produced with some of the footage and pictures taken from around the country.

Chalk the Police is a nation wide campaign to raise public awareness about policing issues. Folks from all over the country will be heading out to their local police station(s) or parks (anywhere that’s public property) to advocate, in solidarity, police accountability.

The idea is to bring signs, fliers and (of course) chalk to their demonstration. While there ask folks passing by if they have something they’d like to say to the police. If they do, hand them some chalk – note, you should check the laws in your area about chalking public property (even though chalk doesn’t damage, some cops get angry over this).

This idea came to me, Ademo, after 8 people were arrested for demonstrating outside the police station in Manchester, NH. Seems some police officers have forgotten what their jobs were intended for, keeping people safe. Not to target those who peacefully assemble after officers were cleared of beating a man.

Kate Ager

Report written by Kate Ager, one of the Manchester Chalking 8.

“On September 12, 2011 the Court held a trial on the above captioned matter. At the conclusion of the evidence and parties’ arguments, the Court took the matters under advisement sans one charge that was dismissed at the conclusion of the Prosecution’s case. There was some delay on the resolution of this case while the Court obtained the proper technology to access the C.D.’s submitted as Defendant’s A and B.

The Prosecution had filed the complaint alleging a class A misdemeanor of disorderly conduct (RSA 644:2). The defedant argues that she did not violate a “lawful order”. The NH

Legislature has defined “lawful order” as:

(1) A command issued to any person for the purpose of preventing said person from committing any offense set forth in this section, or in any section of Title LXII or Title XXI, when

the officer has reasonable grounds to believe said person is about to commit such an offense, or when said person is engaged in a course of conduct which makes his commission of

such an offense imminent.-(2) A command issued to any person to stop him from continuing to commit any offense set forth in this section, or in any section of Title LXII or Title XXI, when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that said person is presently engaged  in conduct which constitutes any such offense; or-(3) A command not to enter or a command to leave an area closed pursuant to paragraph IV, provided that a person may not lawfully be ordered to leave his or her own home or business.-Sergeant Patti of the Manchester Police Department testified that after the police had arrested several people for criminal mischief, he directed that two police detectives photograph and memorialize certain marks near the front of the police station. In the video of the encounter, the Sergeant describes this area in front of the police station as a crime scene. Defendant’s exhibit A. It is beyond peradventure that an uncontaminated crime scene is important to the criminal defendant, society and to the justice system as pristine and untainted crime scene properly documented will assist in the truth-seeking process at trial. Therefore, it is little wonder that the Legislature made it an offense to interfere with criminal investigation in a public place. See RSA 644:2 II (d). Hence, when the Sergeant asked the defendant to move from the area of the sidewalk in front of the Police Station, he would have reasonable grounds to believe that a person was about to violate the above cited provision within Title LXII, by her continued presence within the undocumented crime scene. -Initially, there seems to be a challenge as to whether the first directive was either an order or polite request. Defendant’s A captures the precise words of Sergeant Patti. “Excuse me, would you get off the chalk please.” A command is “direct authoritatively” Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary, p. 164 (1970). Those words of Sergeant Patti constitute an authoritative directive and qualify as a lawful order to move. To the extent that the polite and courteous nature of the direction was ambiguous, the dialogue that follows extinguishes that claim. Defendant verbally challenges the police authority to direct her movement by saying, “Get off the chalk? I am on the sidewalk.” In response Sergeant Patti replies, “I know it is evidence in a crime.” When defendant verbally challenges the designation as a crime, the Sergeant says, “I am giving you a lawful order because we have to take pictures of that. If you are not going to move, you are going to be arrested”. In light of this exchange, which the police were not obligated by the terms of the statute to make, there is no doubt that a lawful order was issued and by standing still this individual violated the law.For conduct to create criminal liability, the defendant’s action must be “…based on conduct that includes a voluntary act…” See RSA 626:1 (I). While there was certainly sufficient time for the defendant to comply with the first lawful command, Sergeant Patti announced the defendant was under arrest within two seconds of the second lawful order. Because of the scant passage of time, the Court cannot find beyond a reasonable douct that the offense was transformed from a violation level offense to a misdemeanor, as the individual must have failed to desist after a request was made; the passage of a second or two does not meet the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See RSA 644:2 VI. The court finds the defendant guilty of a violation offense.-Defendant’s exhibit A shows that Sergeant Patti tells the Defendant that she is under arrest as he steps towards her with hands outstretched at about waist level. When a uniformed law enforcement officers tells an individual that he is placing that person under arrest, no reasonable person could have a scintilla of doubt that she was being arrested i.e. being taken into custody to be forthcoming to answer to a criminal charge. See RSA 594:1 I. The defendant responded, “Get your hands off me!” sergeant Patti can be heard directing the defendant to put her hands behind her back. The video came to an abrupt end with the camera apparently being jostled in the effort to arrest the defendant. The police officer testified that what ensued was a physical struggle to have the defendant’s arms brought behind her back and then handcuffed. Since 1942 the NH Legislature has clearly set forth the obligation of a person who is being arrested “…it is his duty to submit to arrest and refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting it regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest.” RSA 594:5. The Court finds the defendant did physically resist arrest by struggling with the police as they attempted to arrest her. Therefore, the court finds the defendant guilty of that offense.-The remaining offense is a violation of RSA 641:4. The offense has an element that the defendant acted with the specific intent to “induce a police officer to believe that another had committed a crime”. In this instance there is no doubt that the defendant provided false information concerning her date of birth. There appears to be no evidence in the record to support the specific intent element. The failure of proof by the prosecution results in the Court finds defendant not guilty as to this offense.-The court will hold a sentencing hearing on October 20, 2011 at 8:15 AM in Courtroom 301.”

“As an advocate against taking plea deals from the prosecution, I suppose it was assumed that we would be going “Not Guilty” and forcing a trial. About 95% of cases are pled out before there’s an opportunity for trial, which speaks poorly of the justice system. It means more people are cutting deals to lessen their charges than actually allowing their supposed crime to be reviewed by the system, judged and sentenced. Often those not even guilty of any wrongdoing will still find the plea deal an attractive offer since it eliminates the need to expend time and resources in defending oneself in court.” Garret Ean (www.freeconcord.org).

The State of NH vs Garret Ean: Round one

For more information on Garret’s case and court dates:

http://freeconcord.wordpress.com/

http://www.copblock.org/7411/chalk/

Here is the link to the full show. The Lemonade Liberation segment starts at about 6:45.

Lemonade “Terrorism”
August 22, 2011 by Meg McLain

On August 20th, 2011 at 12:31pm on the Capitol lawn in Washington DC, Kathryn Dill, William Duffield, and I were arrested for selling 10cent cups of lemonade.  The events leading up to our arrest, along with our capture and kidnapping were beautifully documented by several activists who came armed with cameras (see high quality video below); therefore, I feel no need to cover those details.  However, once we were taken away, there were no more cameras to share our experience.

First, we were placed in a cage in the back of a van and taken to the police station.  Upon arriving, police took Will inside, leaving Kathryn and I in the sweltering cage.  The men in blue guarding our cage continually taunted us; making jokes and expressing their enjoyment of “locking us away for the weekend”, and how our arrests were “marvelous”.  When it was my turn to enter booking, I was taken to a room where I was photographed, forced to remove my jewelry and shoes, then cuffed to a bar while an officer rubbed every part of my body, including my breasts and vagina.  I was then led down the hall to a small room where I would spend the next 4 hours chained to the wall.

Officer Weatherbee was assigned to my room.  He began a standard line of questioning, failing to read me my rights in advance.  I was continually told I would be caged if I failed to give them every detail they requested, which included the names, phone numbers, addresses, ages, etc… of my friends and family.  I constantly asked “Who was the victim of my supposed crime?”, to which they continually answered, “society”.  When I pointed out that the majority of the crowd had been supportive of our cause, and that ‘society’ was not a person whom I could confront in a court (therefore eliminating my right to face my accuser); I was laughed at and taunted.  I was also told that my friends would be arrested should they attempt to protest our capture at the police station.  One officer smirked, “I can do this [booking prisoners] all day.  Arrest as many as you want.”

After a couple of hours, a man in jeans and a blue shirt came into my room with a notepad and paper.  While I don’t remember the name of his job title (Capitol Criminal Investigator or something like that), he basically explained that he investigated organizations that the government believed to be potential terrorist, and the “Lemonade Liberation” had become their newest big threat.  Although friendly and very light hearted, he seemed aggravated with the lack of information I was giving him.  He wanted to know who the leaders of the organization were [none]; where we held our meetings [we never had any]; where we are based out of [everywhere]; what other plans we had [none]; and a whole line of ridiculous questions that were geared towards finding dangerous, violent, angry people.  Thats not us.  After several hours of friendly, yet inappropriate questioning, I finally asked, “Where is your line in the sand?  At what point do you say, ‘No. That goes too far, and I’m not willing to do that to peaceful people’?  Because if you don’t know where that line is, you’re gonna blindly cross it one day, and regret it for the rest of your life.”  It was at that point he fell silent, then left without saying another word.

Eventually I was able to call my mom from one of the officer’s cell phones (because their landlines were all busy), and she was able to contact Nathan Cox, who was able to bring my ID and the names, addresses, and phone numbers the police were demanding they get before releasing me.  I was taken to a room where all my tattoos were photographed, and multiple versions of my fingerprints were scanned; after which, I was promptly returned to my room and re-chained to the wall.  Finally I was taken down a hallway, forced to put an ink thumb print on a stack of paper work, handed my copy, then given back my property, and told I was free to go.

It wasn’t until after we were out that we heard about all the support that had poured in for us immediately after our arrest.  We discovered there had been a massive call flood to the police station, which we realized had been the direct reason our captors became more and more friendly as our detention progressed.  I also discovered that the police had attempted to discourage Kathryn and Will with lies like, “Those people with the cameras were just using you for their own agenda” or “they didn’t give you a Lemonade Liberation tshirt (some shirts a few of us had made for the event), because they are not your friends.”  Luckily these tactics failed; however, I found it encouraging that they didn’t even attempt this with me.  I knew better, and the cops were aware of that.

Our charges were:
Vending without a permit
Unlawful conduct
Failure to obey

We have all been scheduled to appear in court on October 4th, and we are hoping that people will come out and show their support; be it for us, our cause, or the children who wish to create their own lemonade stand without being harassed or threatened by men with guns.  Details about this event can be found here.

While being arrested is not something I enjoy, I am honored I had the opportunity to participate in such a beautiful demonstration of innocence and peace; and shine light on how it is under attack by the very people sworn to protect it.  But the real heros of the day were those who ignored the threats of arrest and made their way around the police to purchase a cup of lemonade.  To see a child shrug at a cops threat, then defiantly disobey it… it was inspirational, and gave me hope for the inevitable positive change that will come from all this.

Note: the court date for the three arrested is as follows (see the court calendar):

8:30 am?–?12:00 pm

“Today “judge” Arnold ordered Ian caged for 90 days for sitting in front of the vehicle that over a year ago held Heika Courser (who was cuffed for a victimless action). Ian’s request to remain free until his appeal was heard was denied. He also has 270days suspended for 2yrs.”

http://freekeene.com/2011/08/10/free-keene-blogger-ian-freeman-caged-for-90-days/