Fighting.

[Sarah]

Fighting.  What does it mean?

The Feds did their jobs well so far.  They followed protocol, namely:  went for the soft spots and applied some pressure.  The results have been satisfactory beyond their expectations.

They got a number of people to meet and be interrogated by them.  They use this information to build cases, it's highly effective because upset, frightened and respectful people who willingly convo with them (instead of being aware of their own innocence and going on about their business) will make bumbles, do and say things or even indicate things the Feds can use later.

They pushed several folks to retain services of an officer of the court.  Since they've had great success breaking attorney-client privilege (lawyers hate losing their bar cards), this worked to both drain the resources of those folks, put them under further pressure, and get them talking to the attorneys. 

A favorite tender spot is money.  They didn't like the looks of Dave's very fine vid at the Taproom, so they pressed a trigger point with Keith who they figured would do the rest of the work for them.  He did not relish the thought of standing on his good practice in front of the liquor board, so  with visions of losing everything he and others had striven to produce, he did what the Feds expected.  And more.  The license play, the break-solidarity play, they came up diamonds for the Feds.

The NH freestaters and supporters are in a significant dustup among themselves.  Rifts formed between friends.   Some will heal, but a great pot of feelings has been stirred and the Feds win there, too.

I hope that soon, the NH people involved will see that they've been played, used, and will heal the rifts others engineered.  And will plan seriously as to the most effective ways to limit this kind of damage in future. 

[Braddogg]

The feds don't control Murphy's liquor license.  New Hampshire controls that.  That hullabaloo seems to be stirred up by anti-gun, anti-alcohol, and anti-Free-Stater activists in New Hampshire.

[error]

This whole dust-up appears to be the work of a single deranged well-known individual.

[d_goddard]

This whole dust-up appears to be the work of a single deranged well-known individual.

Fisher, again?

[FTL_Ian]

This whole dust-up appears to be the work of a single deranged well-known individual.

Fisher, again?

That seems unlikely.

[error]

My prime suspect is indeed a politically savvy and well-connected individual. Which makes his mental derangement all the more disturbing.

[d_goddard]

My prime suspect is indeed a politically savvy and well-connected individual. Which makes his mental derangement all the more disturbing.

W!

[Braddogg]

No kidding?  Folks are getting buffeted from all sides, and from several 'agencies.'

Must be a mighty politically savvy and well-connected individual! 

The dust-up from the Murphy's thing is the result of a single politically-connected individual.  You're right, though, that the timing isn't a coincidence, but it's not a coordinated Fed attack.  Dave's video has been on youtube for a while.  The guy attacking Keith is taking advantage of the recent media coverage of a Free Stater rightfully accused of making online threats regarding the Ed Brown situation but wrongfully accused of actually being a threat.  Granting daily interviews with the media has drawn this situation out in a very public way, and has widened the circle to include, in the eyes of some, all Free Staters as a group accused of violence.  Then you get the tee-totalers, the anti-gun-activists, and the people who hated the FSP to begin with, and it all goes down like we're seeing now.

I read elsewhere that you signed up for Stefan Molyneux's boards, do you still post there?

[Ogre]

It really makes me sick because the few events of the past week have undone a tremendous amount of goodwill that has been built up by the non-violent free staters who have already moved.  On the flip side, however, it renews my efforts to hurry up and get there so I can help work to change that image and work for freedom despite those who don't want it.

[FTL_Ian]

The dust-up from the Murphy's thing is the result of a single politically-connected individual. 

Why not name names?

[Rocketman]

Because he doesn't have proof.  An investigation is underway.

[dan_sayers]

"You smell that, Rabbit?" "Fear."

Here in Ohio, our concealed carry law originally had a plain sight provision. It doesn't take an English major to find the fault there just on face value alone. There was ONE prosecutor somewhere that tried to make a case against somebody using an IWB holster because the holster and indeed their pants, kept part of the firearm out of plain sight (duh). If you're anything like me, you'll laugh at the silly prosecutor. Nevertheless, quite a number of grown, educated adults were suddenly afraid to use an IWB holster. How did that one man negatively impact so many lives? More importantly, why did so many people hand over part of the rights, comfort, and freedom to what I call a boogeyman?

To me, a boogeyman is a non-existent creature that we yield to by way of our fear. I agree with Sarah, if I'm understanding her correctly, that as of late, the boogeyman is king. Remember, they can only take from us what we give them. And it all begins in the mind.

[FTL_Ian]

Ian, looks like Lord Buckley spilled the beans on the name.

Where?

[d_goddard]

Ian, looks like Lord Buckley spilled the beans on the name.

Where?

Allegedly, here:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11306.msg193034#msg193034

Hearsay and theory... no actual "bean spillage"

[error]

Huh? That message seems to have disappeared.