FBI contacts me again - is this an opportunity?

[John]

It's the unanounced 2am visits you have to worry about, some poor SOB allways seems to get killed.

Thinking "2pm" Saturday might be a closer prediction this time . . .  (actualy maybe 11am?)  They know (and can control) the schedual.

[Dave Ridley]

Here is another thing I thought of doing.   As an individual, I won't count for much, but perhaps it will set an example for others who are contacted by federal agents.

How about I let the agent know that if he and the members of his organization follow thier oaths to the Constitution over the next four weeks (in relation to New Hampshire and its citizens) I will happily dialogue with him at the end of that time.   Would you guys be willing to help watchdog the FBI during that time and flag any of their actions here that may be unconstitutional?

Personally I don't think they can keep their hands out of the unconstitutional cookie jar that long, but if they prove me wrong more power to them.  Currently the only thing I know of for sure which they are doing in New Hampshire which is clearly not Constitutionally authorized would be those PSA's they run on WGIR.   They are clearly nothing more than image polishing for the agency, the kind of thing you'll never find in the Constittuion.  But there's a lot I don't know about what they are doing here, maybe other things are beyond the Constitution....how does their behavior towards us this week stack up constitutionally?  I realize it was polite, but were parts of it clearly not authorized?

[Kat Kanning]

Dave, how would you feel if you knew that the FBI came in without a warrant and searched through your things?  You know that under the patriot act they can just do that?  They're supposed to notify you that it happened with something like 30 days afterwards....like they actually notify you.  You have no way of checking up on these people even if by some miracle they agreed to modify their behavior.  They have to do what their superiors tell them to, not what you want them to do.

I wish I wasn't worrying about this so I could concentrate on something more productive.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Kat, they could probably get all the info, whatever they might want without coming inside.  There isn't much you can do about it.  Get on with your life.

Dave, you're a bit of a Pollyana. These guys, like all police and elected officials take an oath to a Constitution, they know nothing about.  Do you think they have to study it and take a test?
They have unlimited authority to do as they please.

[ravelkinbow]

It would be nice to think that they truly follow and believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but trueth be told to them...people like us...are just radicals who are out to upset the balance and wake up the sheep.  I would like to thing something good could come of this and all I can think of that would be good is that fact "they" would see this group is truely non-violent.  Other than that I doubt they would take anything you say seriously and infact find new reasons to invade peoples lives.  A group of decent people quickly becomes a radical terrorist organization and a pool party at someones house becomes a compound, your basement a bunker and your rife and handgun a cash of weapons.

[John]

You sure got that right!

[Russell Kanning]

Those clowns staked out our house .....poorly.... and then followed us to Manchester.....badly.....Phil and Mark parked right next to Biker Bill and I got to point to their car and say"there are my 2 FBI buddies"....they didn't get out of the car while I was there....they were trying to act like we hadn't found them out.....pathetic.

I can't believe these guys followed us all the way to the airport.....what possible reason could they have?
We are living in a police state.

[Dave Ridley]

This is the message I sent to the FBI around June 15, thought I had posted it here but I must not have.

---

Phil:

Regarding our phone conversation last week, where you expressed a desire to open a dialogue regarding the freedom movement in New Hampshire...
You suggested meeting for lunch or what not in about a month.   I indicated that I do not necessarily think this is a bad idea but that my attitude toward "dialogue" is affected by your office's handling of events in New Hampshire, particularly of the "Unidentified Flying Objector" protest in Manchester. Although I appreciated your friendly and professional demeanor - and that of other agents - towards the "objectors...," I did *not* appreciate the wanton use of my tax dollars on this...at least five agents, two stakeouts, then two vehicles assigned to tail the protestors for an hour en route to Manchester.  All this to protect who from whom?  How? 

I realize it was my friends who triggered this gentle yet expensive overreaction by announcing the protest.  But it wasn't something any of them asked for.  They just wanted to fly the way Americans used to, the way we did through over thirty years of unspeakably dangerous Cold War.  Was this kind of overkill something the Constitution authorizes you to do?  A lot of FBI activity is Constitutional, but I haven't spotted a passage that authorizes this kind of thing.  Maybe I'm missing something.

Nevertheless, I'm not angry, and I do appreciate much of what your office does. I realize that many of the folks you are up against out there really are dangerous people you want to protect us from; I assume that most of you have at some point or another put your lives on the line defending the safety of New Hampshire citizens.   For that, thank you.

Phil, I would be happy to meet with you in a month to exchange views, so long as the FBI does nothing demonstrably unconstitutional inside New Hampshire between now and then. In other words, if you guys just keep your oaths for a month - and just inside this one state - I'll be honored to dialogue with you.  Of course, I can't watchdog the FBI by myself, but I can read the news.  So can the hundreds of other active freedom lovers here.  We won't know nearly all of what you're doing, but we'll notice anything that pops up on the media radar screen.   We can read our Constitution and won't need a judge to tell us if you violate it. 

As I've told you before, as of last month there was at least one thing you've been doing in-state which it seems the U.S. Constitution clearly doesn't authorize.  If not authorized, then it is forbidden to you by the Tenth Amendment.   

It's a seemingly benign violation, but one I am forced to pay for, arguably an instance of compelled speech.  I'm referring to the FBI PSA campaign which airs on WGIR-AM in Manchester (and perhaps elsewhere).   The Constitution authorizes Federal institutions to provide for the common defense, but please tell me where it authorizes you to engage in image-polishing campaigns within the U.S.!   Again, maybe I'm missing something.  If you can explain to me why this is Constitutional I will listen.

Anyway, over the next month I'll be watching and listening to see if these or other extra-Constitutional activities are taking place in New Hampshire with the involvement of the FBI.   If I cannot determine that your agency has done or continued any unconstitutional practice here during that time...I will consider you innocent until proven guilty and be happy to speak with you again!   And I will urge others in New Hampshire to take this approach with your agency.  Step inside the Constitution and - to paraphrase Yoda - "multiply, your allies will."

Also as usual I'm publishing this e-mail and will probably also publish the main points of any future conversations we have.

[FTL_Ian]

Wow.  That's brilliant.  No word back from them yet, hmm?  Perhaps you should pursue him.

[tracysaboe]

Send that to a letter to the editor in a main paper around their. Or submit it as an opt-ed. "Open LEtter to FBI."

Tracy

This is the message I sent to the FBI around June 15, thought I had posted it here but I must not have.

---

Phil:

Regarding our phone conversation last week, where you expressed a desire to open a dialogue regarding the freedom movement in New Hampshire...
You suggested meeting for lunch or what not in about a month.   I indicated that I do not necessarily think this is a bad idea but that my attitude toward "dialogue" is affected by your office's handling of events in New Hampshire, particularly of the "Unidentified Flying Objector" protest in Manchester. Although I appreciated your friendly and professional demeanor - and that of other agents - towards the "objectors...," I did *not* appreciate the wanton use of my tax dollars on this...at least five agents, two stakeouts, then two vehicles assigned to tail the protestors for an hour en route to Manchester.  All this to protect who from whom?  How? 

I realize it was my friends who triggered this gentle yet expensive overreaction by announcing the protest.  But it wasn't something any of them asked for.  They just wanted to fly the way Americans used to, the way we did through over thirty years of unspeakably dangerous Cold War.  Was this kind of overkill something the Constitution authorizes you to do?  A lot of FBI activity is Constitutional, but I haven't spotted a passage that authorizes this kind of thing.  Maybe I'm missing something.

Nevertheless, I'm not angry, and I do appreciate much of what your office does. I realize that many of the folks you are up against out there really are dangerous people you want to protect us from; I assume that most of you have at some point or another put your lives on the line defending the safety of New Hampshire citizens.   For that, thank you.

Phil, I would be happy to meet with you in a month to exchange views, so long as the FBI does nothing demonstrably unconstitutional inside New Hampshire between now and then. In other words, if you guys just keep your oaths for a month - and just inside this one state - I'll be honored to dialogue with you.  Of course, I can't watchdog the FBI by myself, but I can read the news.  So can the hundreds of other active freedom lovers here.  We won't know nearly all of what you're doing, but we'll notice anything that pops up on the media radar screen.   We can read our Constitution and won't need a judge to tell us if you violate it. 

As I've told you before, as of last month there was at least one thing you've been doing in-state which it seems the U.S. Constitution clearly doesn't authorize.  If not authorized, then it is forbidden to you by the Tenth Amendment.   

It's a seemingly benign violation, but one I am forced to pay for, arguably an instance of compelled speech.  I'm referring to the FBI PSA campaign which airs on WGIR-AM in Manchester (and perhaps elsewhere).   The Constitution authorizes Federal institutions to provide for the common defense, but please tell me where it authorizes you to engage in image-polishing campaigns within the U.S.!   Again, maybe I'm missing something.  If you can explain to me why this is Constitutional I will listen.

Anyway, over the next month I'll be watching and listening to see if these or other extra-Constitutional activities are taking place in New Hampshire with the involvement of the FBI.   If I cannot determine that your agency has done or continued any unconstitutional practice here during that time...I will consider you innocent until proven guilty and be happy to speak with you again!   And I will urge others in New Hampshire to take this approach with your agency.  Step inside the Constitution and - to paraphrase Yoda - "multiply, your allies will."

Also as usual I'm publishing this e-mail and will probably also publish the main points of any future conversations we have.

[Dave Ridley]

I'm not sure if they replied or not; one week after I sent it they had still not replied but since then i've had trouble reading the emails accessing the account from which I sent the email.  It's not one i'm used to using.