(Edit 4/10/09: My arraignment for trying to video tape in the courtroom....is April 13 2009. If you want to attend plz drop by Keene District Court around 1pm....my arraignment is scheduled for half an hour later. I think the address is 3 Washington Street, Keene, New Hampshire.
Also a couple requests I have: Could someone pm me if they are able to print out for me a note I have for the judge? And bring it with you to court? Also it might be very helpful if one or two of you could bring pen and paper to the courtroom...and write down exactly what you see and hear ad best you can. Then report it to this thread.... Strangely enough sometimes people don't bother to do this but that kind of thing has worked out very well for some of us in the past when cameras aren't around. Many thanks...
-Dave )
now back to your regularly scheduled thread...
---
The infamous vid that started it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5TCnMnCwVY
The note I sent to Keene District Court Feb 19:
----
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Pro-media civil disobedience at Keene District Court
What: Man to face arrest over camera restrictions
Where: Keene District Court, 3 Washington Street, Keene, New Hampshire 03431-0364, 603.352.2559
When: 8:00 a.m. March 3, 2009
Why: Protest unjustified camera shutdown orders
How: Videographer will attempt to enter court. Will refuse to stop recording without acceptable reason.
Who: Dave Ridley, Manchester news videographer (contact info)
Latest details: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=17123.0
Dear folks at Keene District Court:
Sorry for the delay in getting this to you but I couldn't find an e-mail or fax number. Here are explanations of my grievances and of the peaceful deeds I intend to undertake in protest.
On Novemer 14, 2008, acting without acceptable cause, you ordered documentarian Tom Caruso to shut off his camera during a trial. Caruso had tried to follow your rules, obtained the necessary permissions in advance and travelled hundreds of miles to be pool photographer. Though he was without fault or failing, you shut him down just minutes into the proceedings. Then you removed the victimless defendant whose plight Caruso was attempting to document. You condemned that defendant to a unspeakably excessive sentence, away from the public, away from Caruso's camera.
The perception exists that you are violating New Hampshire's way of life, bringing down a curtain of partial secrecy upon once-public proceedings. We have seen what happens when governing institutions lower such veils of darkness upon their actions. We have, decades ago, allowed such a veil to fall around Federal institutions here and have paid for that mistake. No such barrier is sufferable at KDC.
Fortunately, history has provided the people with a peaceable means of combating such abuses, without reliance on government. The Gandhis and Thoreaus of our world provide inspiration; it is for the rest of us to clumsily follow their ways and hope we may achieve some poor echo of their accomplishment.
On March 3, 2009, I intend to place myself at risk of arrest in your courthouse. First I will try to follow your permission-to-film procedures. I will inform you of my wish to record the arraignment of a Gandhi-emulating marijuana activist. Then, in the absence of illness or emergency, I intend to will appear at the event with video cameras, sound recorders and a readiness to suffer.
I'm ready to face arrest rather than be turned away, ready to go to jail rather than comply with the type of shutdown order you gave Caruso. Previous pool photographers have, understandably, allowed you to intimidate them into compliance The situation at your court requires a pool photographer with less to lose, and even more readiness to make sacrifices on behalf of press freedom. I intend to be that photographer, to videotape the entirity of the arraignment with the defendant's consent and to make the video available for others. I have an open mind toward your legitimate requests and intend to be among the minority who still stand at such proceedings. But unacceptable "stop filming" orders will be...unaccepted. You should assume I'm recording unless otherwise noted.
I also intend to be in the same room as the defendant. I'm ready to face arrest rather than allow him to be separated from me during the proceedings. As much as possible within this context, I will try not to disrupt your process. I'm urging all allies in this matter to do likewise and treat you with respect, even when their conscience compells them to disobey.
As I recall, you sometimes discourage videotaping the audience. I've tried to follow this admonition, but recently you threatened members of that audience with legal harm if they failed to stand for you. Thus, many of the people who will be spectating that day *want* to be recorded for their safety. Your warnings have made them newsworthy. So I'm compelled to videotape at least this part of the audience, and again I'm ready to face arrest rather than do otherwise. I'll submit a separate note outlining ways we can work together to protect the anonymity of uninvolved private citizens.
It's beyond my poor power to change your level of openness against your will. But raising the issue of press freedom in the courtroom...that can be done. And done it shall be.
Yours with best wishes,
Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
Manchester
Also sent this side note to the court:
Options for safeguarding privacy of KDC audience members *and* press freedom
2/16/09
Dear folks at Keene District Court:
I understand you have some concerns regarding the videotaping of audience members inside your courtroom. I'm sympathetic to these concerns, to the possibility that some people forced to be in that room might not want to be photographed. Other audience members, however, do wish to be videotaped. And I wish to videotape them, because they are doing something newsworthy. They are refusing to stand for the judge. The public has right to see this, and I have a duty to try and film it.
There are some options for safeguarding the privacy of the uninvolved, while allowing the public to witness newsworthy events which occur on their side of the courtroom. You may have better ideas, but here are my brainstorms:
1) If you'd like me to, I could announce to the audience that I am about to videotape in their direction...giving camera-shy visitors time to leave the room or cover their faces. Or you could inform them.
2) We could designate a part of the audience area as off limits for videography. The camera-shy could sit there and I could do my best to avoid videotaping that part. I might have to move the tripod to keep that area unseen.
3) If you can allow me to move about somewhat, that will make it easier to keep camera shy people behind the camera. I will defer to you on this, but I reserve the right to take the camera off the tripod. This will make it easier to control the camera and keep it aimed away from uninvolved parties.
Again, I'm open to better ideas. I only want to videotape the audience if and when something newsworthy is happening in their direction. I do not envision aiming their way for long, or on a frequent basis. And for most of your morning, I do not need to videotape at all. I will however need to be in the courtroom between roughly 8:15 am. and the end of Carroll's arraignment.
Again, I am willing to be arrested rather than submit to a blackout of these events.
It may be that our positions condemn us to be opponents of a sort, but we apparently share the privacy goal, and I hope we can work together in good faith to achieve it.
With best wishes as always,
Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
Manchester
And have sent this note to the jail superintendent:
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.
- Mahatma Gandhi
2/18/09
Richard N. Van Wickler
Superintendent, Cheshire Co. DOC
Dear Superintendent Van Wickler:
You may remember me from last year, when I interviewed you over the phone regarding your child support detainee Russell Kanning of Grafton. On March 3, 2009, I plan to become an inmate myself. I've informed Keene District Court that I intend to peaceably violate their draconian media restrictions, and they're unlikely to take this lightly.
While at your facility, I hope to assist you in your goal of eliminating certain victimless crime laws. With their consent, I would like to videotape what victimless inmates are going through, though I realize your jail is one of the less inhumane. I've put out a request for "assistance from outside," and an activist may be contacting you later to arrange
delivery of a camera to me at the jail.
In exchange for some freedom to videotape, I'm willing to answer virtually all the questions your guards may have for me. Normally when I go to jail (though I've only done it once), I decline to answer most of the intrusive personal questions imposed on inmates. The last time I did this the punishment was being forced to go naked for a day. But it was worth it, and my default plan would be to do it again. For the chance to videotape, I could see myself setting most of this aside. There might be a couple of questions I'd still decline, such as providing a "socialist security number."
I would require your word on tape, that you will allow the camera in, before I consider such an arrangement finalized. I would also require your word that I will be free to videotape everything except security-sensitive spots and every *one* except unwilling inmates. Your safety, and their rights, are of equal concern to me. I would require your assurances that the camera will not be confiscated or censored by your men. I'm prepared to delete any clips myself which might inadvertently violate such locations, or the privacy concerns of inmates.
There's good precedent for allowing "inmate-journalists" to operate inside jails. Nightline did it in the 90s twice; I think in one case it was a real inmate and in the other case Ted Koppel himself took up residence in a cell. I make less pretense of neutrality, but I hope your last experience going on the Ridley Report serves as evidence that I am also fair. Whether I'm able to bring a camera in or not, I will likely produce several videos or articles documenting what I see and experience in your jail. I will also treat your staff with respect and endeavor to comply with most types of orders.
Here's a link to the series I did about Essex: TinyUrl.com/c4e3jo
Thanks again for your efforts to end the war on drugs and for your transparent candor in the past.
With best wishes,
Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
Manchester
P.S. I will call your office around 2 p.m. on Thursday, Feb. 26. to discuss this further. If this is a bad time, please have Penney let me know.
Original post follows:
---
I've sent this to Andrew for review and not yet heard back so here it is for the community at large. Your thoughts?
---
My civil dis plan at Andrew Carroll's hearing
OK all...looks like I am ready to do some pre-announced camera disobedience. My brainstorm is to try and freely videotape the Andrew Carroll appearance at Keene District Court March 3, or be arrested. I have readied a note for court personnel which pledges that I will not follow the type of unacceptable camera shut-down orders imposed on the last videographer there. It also essensially pledges that if they attempt to remove Andrew into a room away from me, I will follow until arrested.
For me...this court, this city and this cause seem to provide the most ideal available circumstances for civil disobedience. The rights it would invoke are simple and pure: Press freedom, marijuana freedom.
All of the allies it involves appear to be of great character. No taint of violence or threat appears to haunt any part of "our side" in the matter.
We are confronted by a court which has recently lashed out with the harshest, most unprofessional crackdown ever inflicted on Free Staters. And yet it is a government filled with people I know, who partially understand our message and with whom I have the most cordial relations. The impact on them should be constructive.
These conditions - both the evil and the good - conspire to make this the best available place for a stand.
The plan for now is to make a stand over the right to record inside the courtroom. I am not planning to make such a stand over the right to record in the lobby. In other words, if they choose to arrest me they will likely do it the lobby where videography is forbidden. I will probably not be trying to violate the rules in that location. If others videotape or photograph my arrest there, then there will be a visual record of it. Otherwise there likely won't.
I would request that activists at this event treat all government workers with a degree of respect, no matter how they treat us. I generally don't appreciate folks making fun of authorities. Though I sometimes fail in this regard, I will try to treat them as I would want to be treated. We are supposed to be winning some of them over, not humiliating them.
Maybe we can do the puppet show outside court... either before or after.
As some of you may recall, I promised a while back to continue this little civil dis campaign until I'm arrested or until I've ammassed $1000 in illegal pupetteering profits. If successful in triggering an arrest this day (or $900 lol), the campaign will more or less come to an end. Otherwise it will continue.
Below is a tentative draft announcemnt
-----
NH: Man to disobey media restrictions
What: "Press freedom" civil disobedience
Where: Keene District Court, 3 Washington Street, Keene, New Hampshire, 603.352.2559
When: ____ March 3, 2009
Why: Protest Judge's camera shutdown order
How: Videographer will attempt to enter court. Will refuse to stop recording without acceptable reason.
Who: Dave Ridley, Manchester news videographer (contact info)
Dear folks at Keene District Court:
On Novemer 14, 2008, acting without acceptable cause, you ordered documentarian Tom Caruso to shut off his camera during a trial.
Caruso had attempted to follow your rules, obtained the necessary permissions in advance and travelled hundreds of miles to be pool photographer. Though he was without fault or failing, you shut him down less than four minutes into the proceedings. Shortly thereafter you removed the victimless defendant whose plight Caruso was attempting to document. You condemned that defendant to a unspeakably disproportionate sentence, away from the public, away from Caruso's camera.
The perception exists that you are violating New Hampshire's way of life, bringing down a curtain of partial secrecy upon once-public proceedings. We have seen what happens when governing institutions lower such veils of darkness upon their actions. We have, decades ago, allowed such a veil to fall around Federal institutions here and have paid for that mistake. No such barrier is sufferable at KDC.
Fortunately, history has provided the people with a peaceable means of combating such abuses, without reliance on government. The Gandhis and Thoreaus of our world provide inspiration; it is for the rest of us to clumsily follow their example and hope that we may achieve some poor echo of their accomplishment.
On March 3, 2009 I intend to place myself at risk of arrest in your courthouse. I plan to contact your office in advance and begin what would normally be a routine procedure. I plan to inform you of my wish to record proceedings against a Gandhi-emulating marijuana activist. I plan to appear at that event with video cameras, sound recorders and a readiness to suffer.
After following your procedures as best I'm able, I intend to enter your court with these devices. I'm ready to face arrest rather than be turned away, ready to go to jail rather than comply with the type of shutdown order you gave Caruso. Previous pool photographers have, understandably, allowed you to intimidate them into compliance...for yours is a violent institution. The situation at your court requires a pool photographer with less to lose, and even more readiness to make sacrifices on behalf of press freedom. I intend to be that photographer, to videotape the entirity of the hearing with defendant's consent and to make the video available for others. I have an open mind toward your legitimate requests and intend to be among the minority who still stand at such proceedings. But unacceptable "stop filming" orders will be...unaccepted. You should assume that I am recording unless otherwise noted.
I also intend to be in the same room as the defendant. I'm ready to face arrest rather than allow him to be separated from me during the proceedings. As much as possible within this context, I will try to avoid disrupting your process. I am urging all allies in this matter to do likewise and treat you with respect, even when their conscience compells them to disobedience.
It's beyond my poor power to change your level of openness against your will. But raising the issue of press freedom in the courtroom...that can be done. And done it shall be.
Yours with best wishes,
Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
Manchester
:clap:
Good luck Dave. The whole camera thing has kind of jumped higher on my list, and I really really support you on this. Unfortunately, I won't be able to do it in person just yet, but you've got my well-wishes.
As a side note... I've notice the state thugs becoming more and more harsh. It's amazing how "the latest crackdown" bumps another issue to the top of my list and now things feel like they're rising like the bubbles in a freshly poured glass of Coke...
I like it and will try to be there. Keene District Court (along with Milford District Court) is one of the courts Gov. Lynch is trying to close down to save costs next year so it's a good idea to do this in 2009.
What time is his trial, I might be able to make the drive from Derry to attend?
does anyone know the trial time?
also i dont have much contact info for andrew.... or at least i dont remember where i put it. i'm putting this up mainly so he can see it and comment... anyone want to aim him here?
i probably wont do it if he doesn't like the idea
its funny i think the first person i informed about this was one of the KDC people , although I didn't have many details at that point. is anyone in a position to print it out and drop it by the court once it's official and i have it finalized? or do any of you have an email for the court?
I believe it is an arraignment on March 3rd. Sorry, I don't know what time. Does anyone know that Andrew is planning on showing up for this?
did Gandhi show up for his arraignments? I think he did, history check?
Awesome, Dave. Great point that this is double civil dis, bringing attention to both your (potential) arrest and Andrew's.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on February 13, 2009, 04:18 PM NHFT
I believe it is an arraignment on March 3rd. Sorry, I don't know what time. Does anyone know that Andrew is planning on showing up for this?
I will try to contact him to get an interview for a FreeKeene update. Thanks for the idea. Then we can get some questions answered.
Nice.
Sent this to Keene District Court today by snail mail; no e-mail or fax options apparent.
----
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Pro-media civil disobedience at Keene District Court
What: Man to face arrest over camera restrictions
Where: Keene District Court, 3 Washington Street, Keene, New Hampshire 03431-0364, 603.352.2559
When: 8:00 a.m. March 3, 2009
Why: Protest unjustified camera shutdown orders
How: Videographer will attempt to enter court. Will refuse to stop recording without acceptable reason.
Who: Dave Ridley, Manchester news videographer (contact info)
Dear folks at Keene District Court:
Sorry for the delay in getting this to you but I couldn't find an e-mail or fax number. Here are explanations of my grievances and of the peaceful deeds I intend to undertake in protest.
On Novemer 14, 2008, acting without acceptable cause, you ordered documentarian Tom Caruso to shut off his camera during a trial. Caruso had tried to follow your rules, obtained the necessary permissions in advance and travelled hundreds of miles to be pool photographer. Though he was without fault or failing, you shut him down just minutes into the proceedings. Then you removed the victimless defendant whose plight Caruso was attempting to document. You condemned that defendant to a unspeakably excessive sentence, away from the public, away from Caruso's camera.
The perception exists that you are violating New Hampshire's way of life, bringing down a curtain of partial secrecy upon once-public proceedings. We have seen what happens when governing institutions lower such veils of darkness upon their actions. We have, decades ago, allowed such a veil to fall around Federal institutions here and have paid for that mistake. No such barrier is sufferable at KDC.
Fortunately, history has provided the people with a peaceable means of combating such abuses, without reliance on government. The Gandhis and Thoreaus of our world provide inspiration; it is for the rest of us to clumsily follow their ways and hope we may achieve some poor echo of their accomplishment.
On March 3, 2009, I intend to place myself at risk of arrest in your courthouse. First I will try to follow your permission-to-film procedures. I will inform you of my wish to record the arraignment of a Gandhi-emulating marijuana activist. Then, in the absence of illness or emergency, I intend to will appear at the event with video cameras, sound recorders and a readiness to suffer.
I'm ready to face arrest rather than be turned away, ready to go to jail rather than comply with the type of shutdown order you gave Caruso. Previous pool photographers have, understandably, allowed you to intimidate them into compliance The situation at your court requires a pool photographer with less to lose, and even more readiness to make sacrifices on behalf of press freedom. I intend to be that photographer, to videotape the entirity of the arraignment with the defendant's consent and to make the video available for others. I have an open mind toward your legitimate requests and intend to be among the minority who still stand at such proceedings. But unacceptable "stop filming" orders will be...unaccepted. You should assume I'm recording unless otherwise noted.
I also intend to be in the same room as the defendant. I'm ready to face arrest rather than allow him to be separated from me during the proceedings. As much as possible within this context, I will try not to disrupt your process. I'm urging all allies in this matter to do likewise and treat you with respect, even when their conscience compells them to disobey.
As I recall, you sometimes discourage videotaping the audience. I've tried to follow this admonition, but recently you threatened members of that audience with legal harm if they failed to stand for you. Thus, many of the people who will be spectating that day *want* to be recorded for their safety. Your warnings have made them newsworthy. So I'm compelled to videotape at least this part of the audience, and again I'm ready to face arrest rather than do otherwise. I'll submit a separate note outlining ways we can work together to protect the anonymity of uninvolved private citizens.
It's beyond my poor power to change your level of openness against your will. But raising the issue of press freedom in the courtroom...that can be done. And done it shall be.
Yours with best wishes,
Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
Manchester
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=17162.msg286555#new
The most interesting part of this is your plan to "pan the audience." That's the one thing they've been most adamant about preventing.
Quote from: Coconut on February 18, 2009, 08:24 AM NHFT
The most interesting part of this is your plan to "pan the audience." That's the one thing they've been most adamant about preventing.
That's one thing that Candid World's Tom got away with. Maybe they didn't tell him not to.
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on February 18, 2009, 10:43 AM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on February 18, 2009, 08:24 AM NHFT
The most interesting part of this is your plan to "pan the audience." That's the one thing they've been most adamant about preventing.
That's one thing that Candid World's Tom got away with. Maybe they didn't tell him not to.
true. I forgot about that, but general public was also not present that day.
is he going to show for this arraignment?
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on February 18, 2009, 11:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on February 18, 2009, 11:17 AM NHFT
is he going to show for this arraignment?
Andrew? I believe so.
Andrew and I have an interview scheduled tonight. He will answer all your questions then. Watch FreeKeene.com
cool
Andrew Carroll Update:
http://freekeene.com/2009/02/18/update-carroll-will-participate-not-fight-resist-any-fines/
thanks coconut
I agree with his stand and crazy dada
Dave, that was a WONDERFUL letter.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on February 19, 2009, 04:28 PM NHFT
This could be quite the eventful day...Andrew in court, Ridley doing this, Charlie and Jesse in court.
Charlie and Jesse are Feb 25th, not March 3rd.
Barskey however, is to plea for Freedom Fest Charges on March 3rd.
Quote from: Coconut on February 19, 2009, 04:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on February 19, 2009, 04:28 PM NHFT
This could be quite the eventful day...Andrew in court, Ridley doing this, Charlie and Jesse in court.
Charlie and Jesse are Feb 25th, not March 3rd.
Barskey however, is to plea for Freedom Fest Charges on March 3rd.
Do you know the times for all of these events?
I was ordered to appear at Keene District Court (3 Washington Street, Keene - it's in central square) at 8:30a on 3/3/09. It's just an arraignment, so I doubt they'll go through the effort of making me (and Andrew) wait until the end of the morning, but it's possible.
Sent to Keene Sentinel
---
"Constructive disobedience" at Keene court
Dear folks at the Sentinel:
On Nov. 14, authorities at Keene District Court ordered documentary videographer Tom Caruso to shut off his camera - and keep it off. They were just four minutes into a trial he drove four *hours* to film. No acceptable explanation was provided.
I know some of the court operatives and personally like them. But like them or not, they should not be able to draw a veil of secrecy around their public proceedings. You have a right to know what they're doing with your money. You have a right to know how it looks.
In protest of their partial censorship, I've informed KDC authorities I will respectfully attempt to enter the courtroom around 8:00 a.m. on March 3. I'll have a video camera, and I will *not* shut it off. Not without an acceptable reason. I'll film the arraignment of Gandhi-emulating marijuana activist Andrew Carroll in an appropriate, comprehensive manner, or be arrested.
I'm willing to accept a stiff penalty. But if seized, I will suggest a taxpayer-friendly sentence of community service: Highway litter pickup to be performed in or near Keene.
Yours,
Dave Ridley
(Former Keene resident)
Manchester
Dave,
When you write up a press release, I'll send it on to Keene-media.
2/21/09
Now that I'm looking at going in the pokey 3/3 over the right to videotape in the courtroom...
I'd like to update my "arrest wish list." Once arrested and released, I will probably bring my civil dis campaign to a close. So let's make the most of it. These are the things I hope some of you will do while I'm locked up:
1) First, I'd just urge you to do whatever peaceful constructive thing you think best, on your initiative.
2) If you wish, spread the word about it to the mainstream press via news release or letters-to-editor. For news releases you can use this document while adding your own update info:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=17123.msg286553#msg286553
Here are good places to spread the word about this kind of thing:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=2613.0
3) The thing I'd *most* like to see come out of such an arrest is this: A small explosion of new Youtube channels and "liberty videos." I'd love to see lots of you just SPEW vids. I don't really care what they are about if they're peaceful, but obviously if you can't think of anything better you can always talk about the arrest. Each of you simply going through the process of attaining video creation and upload capability...that is powerful.
I request that those few who have upload access to my channels do the following: Try to make sure at least ten videos per week continue airing on the Ridley Report; whichever videos you think best, produced by whomever. As long as you have producer permission and its peaceful.
If my advertisers feel left in the lurch by my absence they will hopefully contact you and work out something. Other than that it's essentially at your discretion.
Air your own ads there if you like, or find some other way to make a profit for yourself. Do not enable revenue sharing.
If you feel overwhelmed and desperately need to share the password, do not share it with people who ask for it. Find someone you trust and ask them to take it.
Anyway this process should be healthy for the channel, as it will make it less reliant on me.
Here's a good program for downloading youtube vids and re-airing them (presumably on the Ridley Report channel). You will have to change them slightly if they've already aired on youtube, and you'll need permission from the producer.
http://youtubedownload.altervista.org/
When I exit the pokey, I would like to be able to look around and say... wow now there are a dozen new "liberty reporters!"
A final thing you can do to help would be to point other liberty lovers toward this message. It may have been forgotten by the time I am arrested.
Thanks all...
Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
"The New Hampshire Revolution...
Is now televised"
Who are the people with upload access, so I know who to get a video to to announce your arrest, should it happen.
You seem more certain than I that you will actually be arrested. I suspect you will not.
Also sent this side note to the court:
Options for safeguarding privacy of KDC audience members *and* press freedom
2/16/09
Dear folks at Keene District Court:
I understand you have some concerns regarding the videotaping of audience members inside your courtroom. I'm sympathetic to these concerns, to the possibility that some people forced to be in that room might not want to be photographed. Other audience members, however, do wish to be videotaped. And I wish to videotape them, because they are doing something newsworthy. They are refusing to stand for the judge. The public has right to see this, and I have a duty to try and film it.
There are some options for safeguarding the privacy of the uninvolved, while allowing the public to witness newsworthy events which occur on their side of the courtroom. You may have better ideas, but here are my brainstorms:
1) If you'd like me to, I could announce to the audience that I am about to videotape in their direction...giving camera-shy visitors time to leave the room or cover their faces. Or you could inform them.
2) We could designate a part of the audience area as off limits for videography. The camera-shy could sit there and I could do my best to avoid videotaping that part. I might have to move the tripod to keep that area unseen.
3) If you can allow me to move about somewhat, that will make it easier to keep camera shy people behind the camera. I will defer to you on this, but I reserve the right to take the camera off the tripod. This will make it easier to control the camera and keep it aimed away from uninvolved parties.
Again, I'm open to better ideas. I only want to videotape the audience if and when something newsworthy is happening in their direction. I do not envision aiming their way for long, or on a frequent basis. And for most of your morning, I do not need to videotape at all. I will however need to be in the courtroom between roughly 8:15 am. and the end of Carroll's arraignment.
Again, I am willing to be arrested rather than submit to a blackout of these events.
It may be that our positions condemn us to be opponents of a sort, but we apparently share the privacy goal, and I hope we can work together in good faith to achieve it.
With best wishes as always,
Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
Manchester
And have sent this note to the jail superintendent:
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.
- Mahatma Gandhi
2/18/09
Richard N. Van Wickler
Superintendent, Cheshire Co. DOC
Dear Superintendent Van Wickler:
You may remember me from last year, when I interviewed you over the phone regarding your child support detainee Russell Kanning of Grafton. On March 3, 2009, I plan to become an inmate myself. I've informed Keene District Court that I intend to peaceably violate their draconian media restrictions, and they're unlikely to take this lightly.
While at your facility, I hope to assist you in your goal of eliminating certain victimless crime laws. With their consent, I would like to videotape what victimless inmates are going through, though I realize your jail is one of the less inhumane. I've put out a request for "assistance from outside," and an activist may be contacting you later to arrange
delivery of a camera to me at the jail.
In exchange for some freedom to videotape, I'm willing to answer virtually all the questions your guards may have for me. Normally when I go to jail (though I've only done it once), I decline to answer most of the intrusive personal questions imposed on inmates. The last time I did this the punishment was being forced to go naked for a day. But it was worth it, and my default plan would be to do it again. For the chance to videotape, I could see myself setting most of this aside. There might be a couple of questions I'd still decline, such as providing a "socialist security number."
I would require your word on tape, that you will allow the camera in, before I consider such an arrangement finalized. I would also require your word that I will be free to videotape everything except security-sensitive spots and every *one* except unwilling inmates. Your safety, and their rights, are of equal concern to me. I would require your assurances that the camera will not be confiscated or censored by your men. I'm prepared to delete any clips myself which might inadvertently violate such locations, or the privacy concerns of inmates.
There's good precedent for allowing "inmate-journalists" to operate inside jails. Nightline did it in the 90s twice; I think in one case it was a real inmate and in the other case Ted Koppel himself took up residence in a cell. I make less pretense of neutrality, but I hope your last experience going on the Ridley Report serves as evidence that I am also fair. Whether I'm able to bring a camera in or not, I will likely produce several videos or articles documenting what I see and experience in your jail. I will also treat your staff with respect and endeavor to comply with most types of orders.
Here's a link to the series I did about Essex: TinyUrl.com/c4e3jo
Thanks again for your efforts to end the war on drugs and for your transparent candor in the past.
With best wishes,
Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
Manchester
P.S. I will call your office around 2 p.m. on Thursday, Feb. 26. to discuss this further. If this is a bad time, please have Penney let me know.
hmm.
I don't want to be arrested for not standing :(
ridley seems pretty sure he's going to be an inmate. I would bet against it, especially if the turnout is good.
something that just ocurred to me, which i forgot to suggest in the note to the court...
i can always pan down while aiming at the crowd, so as to show no faces. i may do that if there are uninvolved parties in the audience at the relevant moments.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on February 26, 2009, 10:48 AM NHFT
something that just ocurred to me, which i forgot to suggest in the note to the court...
i can always pan down while aiming at the crowd, so as to show no faces. i may do that if there are uninvolved parties in the audience at the relevant moments.
Or just show their backs not faces...
I know that audience panning is not the subject of Dave's disobedience, but Keene Sentinel writers sit in the courtroom and take people's names down. There is no expectation or right to privacy in the courtroom.
I don't supportbreaking the audience rule for the sake of breaking it, but bending over backwards to follow it doesn't make sense either if you're expecting to be arrested anyway.
Is anyone able to print this out for me and hand it to me on march 3 before the Carroll arraignment?
---
Dear folks at Keene District Court:
Now that you've seized me, or are perhaps about to seize me, for attempting to videotape with relative freedom in your courtroom, I'd like to explain what I am and am not willing to do by way of cooperating.
It would likely be an ethical breach for me to pay you a fine, or any fine imposed against a constructive act. I'd be directly underwritting aggression, which you would commit against others. So I can't help you there.
I'm willing to go to jail, but cannot request that you send me there, as that would be a request to hurt taxpayers. Also, for what it is worth, there are some questions I would refuse to answer in jail.
I'm not willing to agree to any suspended sentence, as that would require making promises I can't keep. Suspended sentences require, if I'm not mistaken, a pledge to follow all five million words of NH law. I cannot even begin to understand all these laws and thus cannot in good conscience promise to follow the. I can't post bail, as that would require similar ethical breaches.
But as always, there are constructive solutions available.
I'm willing to perform community service, so long as it is more or less liberty friendly. I'd like to perform as much of it as practical near Keene. However I live in Manchester and spend some time in Seabrook...so the best option would appear to be an accepted type of service which can be performed anywhere in the state. My thought would be for me to contact two or three organizations that have adopted state highways in New Hampshire....perhaps one in Keene, one in Manchester, one near the coast... I'd be happy to perform litter pickups for each of them, on their stretch of "your" highway.
Thus everyone, even you who represent the state, benefit in some way from this attempt at "constructive disobedience." If even the penalty is constructive, then we all win.
Yours,
Dave Ridley
Manchester
The suspended sentence in my case did not involve a pledge. It was to be revoked upon conviction of a misdemeanor, felony, or major motor vehicle violation.
Quote from: DadaOrwell on March 01, 2009, 03:03 PM NHFT
Is anyone able to print this out for me and hand it to me on march 3 before the Carroll arraignment?
---
Dear folks at Keene District Court:
Now that you've seized me, or are perhaps about to seize me, for attempting to videotape with relative freedom in your courtroom, I'd like to explain what I am and am not willing to do by way of cooperating.
It would likely be an ethical breach for me to pay you a fine, or any fine imposed against a constructive act. I'd be directly underwritting aggression, which you would commit against others. So I can't help you there.
I'm willing to go to jail, but cannot request that you send me there, as that would be a request to hurt taxpayers. Also, for what it is worth, there are some questions I would refuse to answer in jail.
I'm not willing to agree to any suspended sentence, as that would require making promises I can't keep. Suspended sentences require, if I'm not mistaken, a pledge to follow all five million words of NH law. I cannot even begin to understand all these laws and thus cannot in good conscience promise to follow the. I can't post bail, as that would require similar ethical breaches.
But as always, there are constructive solutions available.
I'm willing to perform community service, so long as it is more or less liberty friendly. I'd like to perform as much of it as practical near Keene. However I live in Manchester and spend some time in Seabrook...so the best option would appear to be an accepted type of service which can be performed anywhere in the state. My thought would be for me to contact two or three organizations that have adopted state highways in New Hampshire....perhaps one in Keene, one in Manchester, one near the coast... I'd be happy to perform litter pickups for each of them, on their stretch of "your" highway.
Thus everyone, even you who represent the state, benefit in some way from this attempt at "constructive disobedience." If even the penalty is constructive, then we all win.
Yours,
Dave Ridley
Manchester
I've printed it and will bring it to you, but perhaps others should as well in case we don't meet up in time (or I forget it!).
Are people meeting up anywhere beforehand?
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 02, 2009, 11:29 AM NHFT
Are people meeting up anywhere beforehand?
It would be a good idea. I'll offer my apartment.
Usually it's downstairs in the city building or at a nearby downtown establishment, though the apt. may work...
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 02, 2009, 01:19 PM NHFT
...though the apt. may work...
That's just silly goose. We'll meet in the normal location of the city hall porch or downstairs lobby.
Signed,
The Decider
then if anyone is late ... you just head in anyways
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 02, 2009, 01:19 PM NHFT
Usually it's downstairs in the city building or at a nearby downtown establishment, though the apt. may work...
My apartment's where all those signs are. Are we going to carry them outside the courthouse first, then dump them in the back of somebody's van--or what?
I plan to be at the courthouse no later than 8:00, possibly earlier, though i want to be in the courtroom about 8:15 or so.
would be nice if folks can make it by 8
Anyone want to pick me up from the east side of keene prior to 8:00? I pay gas. ;D
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on March 02, 2009, 05:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 02, 2009, 01:19 PM NHFT
Usually it's downstairs in the city building or at a nearby downtown establishment, though the apt. may work...
My apartment's where all those signs are. Are we going to carry them outside the courthouse first, then dump them in the back of somebody's van--or what?
You could try bringing them upstairs to the court lobby. They will likely not let you in the actual court and probably won't like signs in the lobby too much...
Quote from: David on March 02, 2009, 07:55 PM NHFT
Anyone want to pick me up from the east side of keene prior to 8:00? I pay gas. ;D
What's your address?
Call if you need a ride. Cannot guarantee a ride back. 603-313-4421
Here are some of the media outlets I sent the release to... it's at the top of page 1 on this thread, tho i sent them a version that had email addies and phone numbers.
It might be useful for you to update them if i cant.
info@nppa.org
http://www.rcfp.org/contact/index.php
writeus@unionleader.com
news@cmonitor.com
msk@cmonitor.com
webmaster@CheshireTV.org
adiaz@hippopress.com
news@nashuatelegraph.com
afpeditor@americanfreepress.net
http://helpdesk.infowars.com/cgi-bin/ttx.cgi
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/help.php
tderrico@reformer.com
letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com
WKBK Reporter Brad Ryder says of tomorrow's arraignment "I might have to go cover it for the news."
He'll likely have a camera. I wonder if he shows, will they treat WKBK reporters different than "youtube reporters." Likely.
Ridley arrested for recording in the lobby.
He's been released with a summons date.
I am not surprised he was arrested, crooks in the justice department don't like to be video taped when they are discussing what they are going to do to innocent victims.
If he would have been able to record we would have heard wolves describe how they are going to eat a harmless lamb that did nothing. The fact that the lamb is innocent makes the meat sweeter for the wolves in the judges and prosecutors seat.
Mike and Andrew will be in court again 5/1. Ridley arraignment 4/13.
Barskey fell on the ice and dislocated his shoulder and is being taken to the hopsital to get "located" again. He seems OK....was walking around.
They also took my voice recorder (which was on dave when he was arrested). I may not get it back for a while.
I am so very, very sick and tired of this shit.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 03, 2009, 09:18 AM NHFT
Mike and Andrew will be in court again 5/1. Ridley arraignment 4/13.
Barskey fell on the ice and dislocated his shoulder and is being taken to the hopsital to get "located" again. He seems OK....was walking around.
On Gov property!!!!
so Keene court lies somewhere between Milford and the Fed Court in Concord. You can film near the security shakedown station.
Does anyone know what the thugs "charged" Dave with? I am wondering if it is the wiretapping law or some other bogus you didn't obey the gang
Quote from: slim on March 03, 2009, 12:38 PM NHFT
Does anyone know what the thugs "charged" Dave with? I am wondering if it is the wiretapping law or some other bogus you didn't obey the gang
Believe it or not ["Drum roll, please!"]
Disorderly Conduct. Where can I sign up to be on the jury to nullify that one?
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on March 03, 2009, 12:52 PM NHFT
Believe it or not ["Drum roll, please!"] Disorderly Conduct.
It seems they're just about ready to quit playing games with all these complicated laws and just make the one crime-- Disobeying. Once the law has been simplified like that, then this statement will finally be true: "Ignorance of THE LAW is no excuse".
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on March 03, 2009, 12:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: slim on March 03, 2009, 12:38 PM NHFT
Does anyone know what the thugs "charged" Dave with? I am wondering if it is the wiretapping law or some other bogus you didn't obey the gang
Believe it or not ["Drum roll, please!"] Disorderly Conduct. Where can I sign up to be on the jury to nullify that one?
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/644/644-2.htm Is the what "disorderly conduct" is defined as by the state of NH. I think Dave can be found not guilty on this one.
my my my what disgusting bureaucrats there are in Keene.
Quote from: dalebert on March 03, 2009, 12:59 PM NHFT
It seems they're just about ready to quit playing games with all these complicated laws and just make the one crime-- Disobeying. Once the law has been simplified like that, then this statement will finally be true: "Ignorance of THE LAW is no excuse".
+1 Insightful!
Post-arrest interview with Dave:
Quote from: slim on March 03, 2009, 12:38 PM NHFT
Does anyone know what the thugs "charged" Dave with? I am wondering if it is the wiretapping law or some other bogus you didn't obey the gang
RSA 644:2, III (b), specifically:—
III. He purposely causes a breach of the peace, public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creates a risk thereof, by:
(b) Disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility;
Quote from: thinkliberty on March 03, 2009, 01:00 PM NHFT
I think Dave can be found not guilty on this one.
He can, but he may not . . .
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 03, 2009, 02:08 PM NHFT
Quote from: slim on March 03, 2009, 12:38 PM NHFT
Does anyone know what the thugs "charged" Dave with? I am wondering if it is the wiretapping law or some other bogus you didn't obey the gang
RSA 644:2, III (b), specifically:—
III. He purposely causes a breach of the peace, public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creates a risk thereof, by:
(b) Disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility;
His video recording creates no physical inconvenience to anyone. It makes no sound and there for cannot be annoying or alarming, was/is not reckless and did not create a risk.
His did not entice or lead anyone to tumult and did not cause any disorder. Therefore could not have caused a disruption and did not imped on the orderly conduct of business.
Anyone want to go to KPD tonight and see if I can find out how to get my voice recorder back?
Hidden recording devices are needed.
Quote from: Puke on March 03, 2009, 03:32 PM NHFT
Hidden recording devices are needed.
This one was on Ridley when he was arrested.
I had another in my hand that was very visible that they did not take.
Quote from: AntonLee on March 03, 2009, 01:06 PM NHFT
my my my what disgusting bureaucrats there are in Keene.
no one likes their power being challenged, in keene or elsewhere. We have been pushing back in a soft but direct manner longer than anyone else that i know of, and yeah, they do not like it. :-\
Quote from: thinkliberty on March 03, 2009, 03:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on March 03, 2009, 02:08 PM NHFT
Quote from: slim on March 03, 2009, 12:38 PM NHFT
Does anyone know what the thugs "charged" Dave with? I am wondering if it is the wiretapping law or some other bogus you didn't obey the gang
RSA 644:2, III (b), specifically:—
III. He purposely causes a breach of the peace, public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creates a risk thereof, by:
(b) Disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility;
His video recording creates no physical inconvenience to anyone. It makes no sound and there for cannot be annoying or alarming, was/is not reckless and did not create a risk.
His did not entice or lead anyone to tumult and did not cause any disorder. Therefore could not have caused a disruption and did not imped on the orderly conduct of business.
Indeed. Except, 644:2 is just a long-winded way of saying, "you didn't do what we told you to."
My .02...
Article 8th. [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.
91-A:1 Preamble
Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic
society. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure both the greatest
possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all
public bodies, and their accountability to the people.
91-A:1-a Definitions.
II. "Governmental proceedings" means the transaction of any
functions affecting any or all citizens of the state by a
public body.
91-A:2 Meetings Open to Public.
II ... Any person shall be permitted to use recording
devices, including, but not limited to, tape recorders,
cameras, and videotape equipment, at such meetings.
91-A:7 Violation.
Any person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter may
petition the superior court for injunctive relief. In order
to satisfy the purposes of this chapter, the courts shall
give proceedings under this chapter high priority on the
court calendar. Such a petitioner may appear with or without
counsel. The petition shall be deemed sufficient if it states
facts constituting a violation of this chapter, and may be
filed by the petitioner or his or her counsel with the clerk
of court or any justice thereof. Thereupon the clerk of court
or any justice shall order service by copy of the petition on
the person or persons charged. When any justice shall find
that time probably is of the essence, he or she may order
notice by any reasonable means, and he or she shall have
authority to issue an order ex parte when he or she shall
reasonably deem such an order necessary to insure compliance
with the provisions of this chapter.
91-A:8 Remedies.
I. If any public body or agency or employee or member
thereof, in violation of the provisions of this chapter,
refuses to provide a governmental record or refuses access to
a governmental proceeding to a person who reasonably requests
the same, such public body, public agency, or person shall be
liable for reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in a
lawsuit under this chapter provided that the court finds that
such lawsuit was necessary in order to make the information
available or the proceeding open to the public. Fees shall
not be awarded unless the court finds that the public body,
public agency, or person knew or should have known that the
conduct engaged in was a violation of this chapter or where
the parties, by agreement, provide that no such fees shall be
paid. In any case where fees are awarded under this chapter,
upon a finding that an officer, employee, or other official
of a public body or agency has acted in bad faith in refusing
to allow access to a governmental proceeding or to provide a
governmental record, the court may award such fees personally
against such officer, employee, or other official.
WMUR CHANNEL NINE v. N.H. DEP'T, 154 N.H. 46 (2006)
WMUR CHANNEL NINE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME.
No. 2005-787.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Merrimack.
Argued: June 7, 2006.
Opinion Issued: August 3, 2006.
1. Administrative Law — Hearings — Due
Process
Because the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game failed to
demonstrate that an applicant for a hunting license had a due
process right in a hearing on denial of the application, its
argument that it properly balanced the right to videotape the
hearing against the applicant's right to due process was rejected.
2. Administrative Law — Hearings — Open
An administrative rule on a hearing officer's regulation and
control of hearings did not authorize the executive director of
the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game to exclude cameras
from a hearing in violation of the Right-to-Know Law. N.H. Admin
Rules, Fis. 203.01(b); RSA 91-A:2, II.
3. Attorneys — Fees — Particular Cases
Because it could not be concluded that the executive director of
the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game either knew or
should have known that excluding cameras from a hearing would
violate the Right-to-Know Law, the trial court's denial of the
television station's request for attorney's fees was affirmed. RSA
91-A:8.
Orr & Reno, P.A., of Concord (Emily Gray
Rice and Jeffrey C. Spear on the brief, and
Ms. Rice orally), for the plaintiff.
Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Daniel J.
Mullen, associate attorney general, on the brief and
orally), for the defendant.
GALWAY, J.
The petitioner, WMUR Channel Nine (WMUR), appeals an order
of the Superior Court (Fitzgerald, J.) denying WMUR's
request for attorney's fees after finding that the respondent
violated the Right-to-Know Law, RSA chapter 91-A (2001 &
Supp. 2005). The respondent, the New Hampshire Department of
Fish and Game (department), cross-appeals the superior court's
ruling that the department violated RSA chapter 91-A. We
affirm.
The record supports the following facts. In 1993, the
department revoked John Hardwick's hunting license after he
shot and killed another hunter while deer hunting. In September
2004, Hardwick applied for a new hunting license. The
department denied the application. Hardwick appealed the
decision to the department's executive director, Lee Perry,
pursuant to RSA 214:17 (2000). Perry held a pre-hearing
conference, at which Hardwick argued that the hearing should be
closed to the public
Page 47
because he was a "simple and shy person who would freeze if he
had to make his case" in public. Perry decided to close the
hearing to cameras and audio recording devices because he
concluded that the commotion caused by television cameras and
lights would effectively deprive Hardwick of his opportunity to
be heard on his hunting license reinstatement claim. After the
conference, Perry issued a notice of hearing stating that the
hearing would be closed to television cameras and recording
devices. On the date of Hardwick's appeal hearing in November,
WMUR appeared with television cameras. An employee of WMUR was
permitted to attend the hearing and take notes, but cameras
were barred. WMUR filed a petition for an injunction with the
superior court to permit access for the cameras; however, the
court was unable to act upon the motion before the hearing's
conclusion.
Subsequent to the hearing, the parties agreed to submit the
matter to the superior court on cross-motions for summary
judgment. WMUR's motion requested findings that the department
violated RSA chapter 91-A by refusing to allow WMUR to
videotape the November hearing, and that the violation entitled
WMUR to attorney's fees. The department's cross-motion argued
that Perry's decision to exclude cameras was reasonable and
that WMUR's rights under RSA chapter 91-A were not violated.
The trial court found that RSA 91-A:2, II applied and that the
department violated the statute by not permitting cameras into
the hearing. The trial court found that WMUR was not entitled
to attorney's fees, however, because Perry neither knew nor
should have known that his conduct violated RSA chapter 91-A.
Both parties appeal the trial court's order. The parties do not
dispute any material facts in the case. The department argues
that the trial court erroneously decided that the department
violated RSA 91-A:2, II by excluding cameras. WMUR argues that
the trial court erroneously decided that WMUR was not entitled
to attorney's fees.
In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary
judgment,
we consider the affidavits and other evidence, and all
inferences properly drawn from them, in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. If our review of
the evidence does not reveal any genuine issue of
material fact, and if the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law, we will affirm the trial
court's decision. We review the trial court's
application of the law to the facts de novo.
Dalton Hydro v. Town of Dalton, 153 N.H. 75, 77 (2005)
(citations omitted). "The interpretation of a statute,
including the Right-to-Know Law, is to be decided ultimately by
this court." Goode v. N.H. Legislative
Page 48
Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551, 553 (2002). We first
look to the plain meaning of the words used in the statute and
will consider legislative history only if the statutory
language is ambiguous. Id. at 553-54. "We resolve
questions regarding the [Right-to-Know] law with a view to
providing the utmost information in order to best effectuate
the statutory and constitutional objective of facilitating
access to all public documents." Id. at 554.
I. Violation of RSA 91-A:2, II
Both parties rely upon RSA chapter 91-A, which governs access
to public records and meetings. The relevant language from RSA
91-A:2 states: "All public proceedings shall be open to the
public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any
meetings of those bodies or agencies. . . . Any person shall be
permitted to use recording devices, including, but not limited
to, tape recorders, cameras and videotape equipment, at such
meetings."
The department does not dispute the trial court's conclusion
that Hardwick's hearing before the department was a "public
proceeding" under RSA 91-A:2, II. Further, the department
concedes that the statute gives any person, including the
media, a right to use video recording equipment in a public
proceeding. Despite the applicability of RSA 91-A:2, II, the
department argues that Perry's decision to exclude cameras from
the hearing was correct for two reasons. First, Perry correctly
balanced WMUR's right to videotape the hearing against
Hardwick's constitutional due process right to have a fair
hearing and an opportunity to be heard. Perry's balancing was
proper, the department argues, because of his concern that
Hardwick would not have been able to present fairly his
position with a camera present. Second, the department argues
that its administrative rules granted Perry independent
authority to exclude the cameras.
Though the department argues that Perry properly balanced
WMUR's right to videotape the hearing against Hardwick's right
to due process, the department has not developed a
constitutional due process argument. The department simply
states that Hardwick had a due process right to be heard and to
have a fair hearing. The department did not identify whether
the rights implicated by Perry's balancing arise under the
Federal or the New Hampshire Constitution. If the department
meant to argue under the State Constitution, we decline to
address the argument. We will not address a party's State
constitutional argument on appeal if the party does not
specifically invoke in its brief a provision of the State
Constitution. State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632
(1986). Because the department failed to invoke a specific due
process provision of the
New Hampshire
Constitution,
Page 49
we limit our due process analysis to the Federal
Constitution. See Town of Nottingham v. Newman,
147 N.H. 131, 135 (2001) (addressing solely the defendants' federal
due process argument because they failed to invoke Part I,
Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution).
It is well settled that the right to due process under the
Federal Constitution arises only when there is a
constitutionally protected life, liberty, or property interest
at stake. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221
(2005). The department, however, has not identified a
constitutionally protected interest that was at stake in
Hardwick's hearing. Had the department done so, it presumably
would have pointed to Hardwick's interest in obtaining a
hunting license. We have never held, however, that a hunting
license is a constitutionally protected right, and such a
proposition is questionable, since other jurisdictions have
specifically held that a hunting or fishing license is not a
property interest for purposes of due process. E.g., Conti
v. United States, 291 F.3d 1334, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2002);
Pennsylvania Game Com'n v. Marich, 666 A.2d 253, 257
(Pa. 1995). We decline to consider such a proposition when
neither party has argued it. Because the department has failed
to demonstrate that Hardwick had a due process right in the
hearing, we reject the department's first argument.
The department's second argument, that its administrative rules
gave Perry the authority to override RSA 91-A:2, II, is also
unavailing. The department's rules provide: "A presiding
[hearing] officer shall as necessary: (1) Regulate and control
the course of a hearing; . . . [and] (8) Take any other action
consistent with applicable statutes, rules and case law
necessary to conduct the hearing and complete the record in a
fair and timely manner." N.H. ADMIN RULES, Fis 203.01(b). The
department asserts that this rule permitted Perry to issue an
order that excluded cameras from the hearing. An agency,
however, must "comply with the governing statute, in both
letter and spirit, and agency regulations which contradict the
terms of a governing statute exceed the agency's authority."
Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539, 555 (2006)
(quotations and citations omitted). There is no dispute that
RSA 91-A:2, II applied to the department's hearing, and was,
thus, a governing statute. Further, the express language of RSA
91-A:2, II states that "[a]ny person shall be permitted to use
recording devices, including . . . videotape equipment, at such
meetings." Assuming without deciding that the department's
interpretation of Rule 203.01(b) is accurate and that the rule
purports to authorize the department to exclude cameras from
the hearing, the rule conflicts with RSA 91-A:2, II.
Accordingly, Rule 203.01(b) did not
Page 50
authorize Perry to exclude cameras from Hardwick's hearing in
violation of RSA 91-A:2, II. Because the department has failed
to provide an adequate reason for Perry's exclusion of cameras
at Hardwick's hearing, we affirm the trial court's ruling that
the department violated RSA 91-A:2.
II. Attorney's Fees
Whether the trial court should have awarded attorney's fees to
WMUR implicates RSA 91-A:8, which states, in pertinent part:
If any body or agency or employee or member thereof,
in violation of the provisions of this chapter,
refuses to provide a public record or refuses access
to a public proceeding to a person who reasonably
requests the same, such body, agency, or person shall
be liable for reasonable attorney's fees and costs
incurred in a lawsuit under this chapter provided that
the court finds that such lawsuit was necessary in
order to make the information available or the
proceeding open to the public. Fees shall not be
awarded unless the court finds that the body, agency
or person knew or should have known that the conduct
engaged in was a violation of this chapter. . . .
Accordingly, under RSA 91-A:8, attorney's fees shall be awarded
if the trial court finds that: (1) the lawsuit was necessary to
make the information available; and (2) "the body, agency, or
person knew or should have known that the conduct engaged in
was a violation of [RSA chapter 91-A]." Prof'l Firefighters
of N.H. v. HealthTrust, 151 N.H. 501, 507 (2004).
Neither party contests that WMUR's petition for an injunction
was necessary for WMUR's cameras to gain access to the hearing.
The parties dispute only whether Perry knew or should have
known that his exclusion of the cameras violated RSA
chapter 91-A. WMUR argues that RSA 91-A:2 clearly states that any
person shall be allowed to videotape a public proceeding,
subject to exceptions which did not apply in this case. Every
person is presumed to know the law, WMUR asserts; thus, Perry
should have known that WMUR had a right to videotape the
hearing. The department argues that, even though RSA
chapter 91-A applied to the hearing, Perry reasonably believed that he
needed to balance WMUR's right to videotape the hearing against
Hardwick's due process right to be heard.
As stated above, we have never decided whether or not there is
a constitutionally protected property interest in a hunting
license. We have,
Page 51
however, recognized that the privilege of holding a driver's
license is a legally protected interest requiring due process
prior to suspension. Bragg v. Director, N.H. Div. of Motor
Vehicles, 141 N.H. 677, 678 (1997). Based upon the state
of the case law, we cannot conclude that Perry should have
known not to balance Hardwick's alleged due process rights
against WMUR's right under RSA chapter 91-A to videotape the
hearing. See Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget
Assistant, 145 N.H. 451, 455 (2001) (concluding that
defendant neither knew nor should have known that its conduct
violated RSA chapter 91-A due, in part, to the state of case
law). As for whether Perry in fact knew that excluding WMUR's
cameras from the hearing would violate RSA chapter 91-A, we see
no error in the trial court's finding that he did not know that
his conduct would violate the statute because he was confused
about the extent to which a judicial standard, instead of RSA
chapter 91-A, applied to the proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm
the trial court's denial of WMUR's request for attorney's fees.
Affirmed.
DALIANIS, DUGGAN and HICKS, JJ., concurred.
Please spread the word everywhere you can and whenever you post about this story, show the digg link, http://digg.com/politics/Youtube_videographer_broadcasts_own_arrest_live
Quote from: Coconut on March 03, 2009, 03:08 PM NHFT
Anyone want to go to KPD tonight and see if I can find out how to get my voice recorder back?
They said I have to talk to the Lt. in the morning.
Don't answer his questions about the audio recorder, just claim it as yours.
Quote from: Coconut on March 03, 2009, 06:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on March 03, 2009, 03:08 PM NHFT
Anyone want to go to KPD tonight and see if I can find out how to get my voice recorder back?
They said I have to talk to the Lt. in the morning.
Lt. Thomas? You may want a camera present for the meeting, especially if you do it at KPD.
Quote from: FreeKeene.com's Ian on March 03, 2009, 07:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on March 03, 2009, 06:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on March 03, 2009, 03:08 PM NHFT
Anyone want to go to KPD tonight and see if I can find out how to get my voice recorder back?
They said I have to talk to the Lt. in the morning.
Lt. Thomas? You may want a camera present for the meeting, especially if you do it at KPD.
I had one, and recorded the whole thing tonight. Won't release that until I get to talk to Thomas.
Quote from: David on March 03, 2009, 07:44 PM NHFT
Don't answer his questions about the audio recorder, just claim it as yours.
it IS mine!
Oh. Right, so I don't get charged with conspiracy to commit illegal recording.
Hey! Good job to Robin Hood and his men for capturing a second video recording of Dave's arrest.
Quote from: Coconut on March 03, 2009, 06:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on March 03, 2009, 03:08 PM NHFT
Anyone want to go to KPD tonight and see if I can find out how to get my voice recorder back?
They said I have to talk to the Lt. in the morning.
public servants
looks like the thugs in keene arent following the nh constitution ... time to secede
Quote from: Coconut on March 03, 2009, 09:09 PM NHFT
Hey! Good job to Robin Hood and his men for capturing a second video recording of Dave's arrest.
Maybe I can convince them to be more inspired next time. ;)
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on March 03, 2009, 09:45 PM NHFT
Maybe I can convince them to be more inspired next time. ;)
By inspired do you mean beatey?
Cause I don't think we want them more beatey.
No, I didn't mean the cops... I meant the Merry Dudes. :)
Quote from: Facilitator to the Icon on March 04, 2009, 11:34 AM NHFT
No, I didn't mean the cops... I meant the Merry Dudes. :)
Oh, my bad.
I'll probably hear from the investigator in charge of Dave's case tomorrow or next week regarding getting my voice recorder cleared from evidence.
Quote from: slim on March 03, 2009, 12:38 PM NHFT
Does anyone know what the thugs "charged" Dave with? I am wondering if it is the wiretapping law or some other bogus you didn't obey the gang
OK, I've probably met slim before, but now I have him connected with his online persona :)
Quote from: Coconut on March 03, 2009, 06:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on March 03, 2009, 03:08 PM NHFT
Anyone want to go to KPD tonight and see if I can find out how to get my voice recorder back?
They said I have to talk to the Lt. in the morning.
I got my voice recorder back.
Quote from: Coconut on March 11, 2009, 08:18 PM NHFT
I got my voice recorder back.
Is the content intact, so far as you can tell?
Quote from: KBCraig on March 12, 2009, 12:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on March 11, 2009, 08:18 PM NHFT
I got my voice recorder back.
Is the content intact, so far as you can tell?
We never got around to useing it for any recording before dave was arrested with it. However, the stuff I already had on it was still there.
Where did you have to go to pick it up?
Quote from: Andrew on March 12, 2009, 08:08 AM NHFT
Where did you have to go to pick it up?
Police station
posted this to the calendar entry..
My arraignment for trying to video tape in the courtroom....is April 13 2009. If you want to attend plz drop by Keene District Court around 1pm....my arraignment is scheduled for half an hour later. I think the address is 3 Washington Street, Keene, New Hampshire.
Also a couple requests I have: Could someone pm me if they are able to print out for me a note I have for the judge? And bring it with you to court? Also it might be very helpful if one or two of you could bring pen and paper to the courtroom...and write down exactly what you see and hear ad best you can. Then report it to this thread.... Strangely enough sometimes people don't bother to do this but that kind of thing has worked out well for some of us in the past when cameras aren't around. Many thanks...
Dada, when is your trial going to happen?
i think its june 22 standby
dada said standby
standing by
Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt0Olw3RPJQ
Sending this to Judge Burke by snail mail...following the concerns I raised with him during my trial. My concerns had to do with a man who died mysteriously after being sentenced for traffic violations.
----
Judge Edward Burke
Keene District Court
P.O. Box 364
Keene, NH 03431-0364
July 2, 2009
Dear Judge Burke:
I wanted to give you a quick shout and apologize for the wording of the question I presented you with on June 22. I believe I said "Do you have any concerns regarding the man you sentenced to death?"
I realized shortly thereafter that you were possibly not the one who issued the jail sentence which turned into a sort of death sentence for Stewart Clark. After some research, with the help of Barbara at your office, I learned that you personally may have had little or no role in the sentencing. My understanding at this point it that the sentence itself more likely came from Superior Court.
I'm sorry for jumping the gun in accusing you of the sentencing. There is plenty for which you *do* deserve blame. I still have concerns as to what if any role you may have played in the Clarke process. And there are still grievances regarding your continued role in damaging harmless lives.
But it is never okay for me to be inaccurate with accusation.
Yours,
Dave Ridley
Grafton
cc: FreeKeene.com,
RidleyReport.com
Quote from: DadaOrwell on July 03, 2009, 03:25 PM NHFT
it is never okay for me to be inaccurate with accusation.
I'd have added: "That's your department."
Popular NH Videographer in Jail
http://newhampshirefreepress.com/node/456
Is anyone from the Manch area going to Social Sundays/Ridley's Release Party in Keene today and can offer a ride?
and more video! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUiFwg4p-No)
Thanks, Dale and Lauren! ;D 8)
Great videos, guys!
Requesting help finding errors or problems with this before I send it to papers...
----
Letter from a New Hampshire Jail
"Outlaw Journalist" defies order to stop recording
It is said that silence is often louder than speech, that a voice quashed is more powerful than one left free.
So, as I undertake the third night of a six-day civil disobedience imprisonment, there is no urgent crush to communicate. But it is fitting to outline the events which led here and the cause which fires so many others to suffer a similar path.
It is Christendom's two thousand and tenth year. But within the nation where the religion once held greatest sway, a cruel epidemic waxes. It is not a pestilence of truly natural origin, not a pestilence at all by the traditional meaning of the noun. It is a millstone fervently worn - literally celebrated - by the plurality of those who endure its crushing weight. Through its privations hapless families are flung apart, innocent souls ripped from feeble bodies and innocence itself shorn from the hearts of its unaccountable enforcers. All unfolds on the dime of the hapless worker and plundered businessman, above the graves of twenty-five thousands who died fighting a three percent document tax.
It is the grand, hungry march of exploding government authority...and as these words take form its advance unfolds exponential. No truce or parley checks its dark course. Beside the New England forts which stood or fell in the first revolution, all 'round the siege lines which still mark the British surrender, lights are going out...the lights of homes stolen by state forfeiture or eminent domain, of businesses ruined by growing tax and mandate.
But the most golden lights to dim have been those of personal liberty and peaceable rebellion. Like night-blind children compelled toward the isolated candles of a primitive village, we who live for such light have found ourselves drawn toward the places where it still feebly shines. And of those places, one has stood above the others, cast a truer shadow, made possible a greater hope. It is the land English invaders lamented, a jungle of prodigious hilltops and ruthless ice.
In this unborn country, a calm revolt - or rather a series of revolts - is undertaken. Its politicians rebel (selectively) against Washington control, its people against its politicians and its media pipelines against any of the above which would muzzle them. It is a place of constructive defiance. It has never been anything less.
Toward this partially wild East, America's most deliberate migration project since the Homestead Act enters its sixth year. Five hundred over-active refugees from the authoritarian states of "Republikrat" America link arms with New Hampshire's native liberty community and cobble a loose but increasingly potent defense against the seemingly unstoppable march of Authority. With a calculated desperation not seen since the days of Parks and King, some of them clumsily follow the path of the same. To the unjust they say: Ignore us and admit the wrongness of your victimless crime laws, or seize us and amplify our message.
There are, it is believed, several lines of defense which must be held in this manner against the encroaching cancer. Perhaps the most valuable of these is the newly decentralized exercise of press freedom. The practice of camcording official activity and placing it upon the waves of the electronic web for all to support or decry, that practice has fallen into the desperate hands of the "little people." As a check against government abuse it is indispensable. It is, in this land of so many hills, a good one upon which to die.
Across New Hampshire, the freedom to record exists, but only in a tenuous, ambiguous form. An elderly "wiretapping" law is often cited by officials wishing to frighten from their presence the troubling light of independent recording. In courtrooms, judges are encouraged by law to permit independent taping but granted a hazardous leeway to limit the same. Some choose to expand their mandate and exert censorship over the lobbies outside their force-funded chambers. Others permit relatively unfettered access, ban cameras altogether or moodily swing from one extreme to the next.
In the twilight of 2008, videographer Tom Caruso gently presses Keene District Court for leave to film the controversial trial of a victimless defendant. The defendant approves, but Caruso's lens captures the judge in a fit of anger. The New York documentarian has driven four hours to record this proceeding, but four minutes into it the flustered jurist's enforcers compel him to stop. Meanwhile the defendant is hustled away and tried in relative secrecy. In protest, I report to the court with a promised course of action. I pledge that come the next such proceeding, weeks hence, I will follow Caruso's path and endeavor to film. But I will peaceably disobey any such unjust orders to turn my camera off.
In the event, upon arrival, recording is banned completely...both in the court itself and in the lobby outside. Lawful or not, the unsigned order has the weight of a smalltown army behind it. I am seized in the lobby, camera in hand, perhaps the first journalist to video-broadcast his own arrest live. Much of what ensues is well-known to our liberty community: The five arrests surrounding my arraignment, the more heroic and robust stand of videographer Sam Dodson, the eventual re-admission of cameras to Keene District Court.
But it is our purpose which gives meaning to the deeds:
The purpose of accountability, of holding "our" officials to the cleansing glare of a camcorder's sunlight and saying to all who would interfere: "On the job means on the record."
The purpose of liberty...the right of each soul to do all she pleases that harms or threatens none against their will...
And, as unprecedented government growth brushes a nation toward the cliff of collapse, the purpose of ensuring it may never be said we did nothing.
Decades after the largely peaceable struggles which brought partial liberation to the bonded peoples of India and the American South, children still asked "What did you do in the Struggle, grandpa?"
From this concrete box it is appropriate only to ask: Please do what you are able, while there is still time, to ensure you have a convincing answer.
Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
Grafton
:clap:
Well said.
would anyone like to help me distribute this to media and forums while its still fresh?
Hey guys, just curious to if there is a chance the jail will put a ban on picnics?
Dave - Sad to hear you were locked up on my birthday =[
I would love to help , how do I get started ?
Quote from: CJS on July 15, 2009, 12:16 PM NHFT
I would love to help , how do I get started ?
Copy it to other forums (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=2613.0)