LTE's from Undergrounders

[Dreepa]

This is funny because I just met Arnold Coda...

Tuesday was a huge budget meeting in Hopkinton.  He was talking about how high the school budget is.
Someone on the school board told him to take it up with Concord.
ABout 50 people showed for the public hearing.

Last night the budget committee talked about the issue in meeting open to the public.
10 people showed... 7 because they were on the selectman's or school board.  Only 3 'citizens'.

I will make sure that I save my LTE and give it to him... TAXES are not the answer.

[CNHT]

This is funny because I just met Arnold Coda...

Tuesday was a huge budget meeting in Hopkinton.  He was talking about how high the school budget is.
Someone on the school board told him to take it up with Concord.
ABout 50 people showed for the public hearing.

Last night the budget committee talked about the issue in meeting open to the public.
10 people showed... 7 because they were on the selectman's or school board.  Only 3 'citizens'.

I will make sure that I save my LTE and give it to him... TAXES are not the answer.

You go, Chris!   

[Dave Ridley]

(sent to Union Leader as an LTE)

MPD: Our defenders or Fed lapdogs?

Dear folks at the Union Leader:

I wasn't impressed by the Manchester Police Department's decision to arrest two libertarian demonstrators on Wednesday, Feb. 8.  Of the many dozens of protesters present, only Kat Dillon and Russell Kanning of Keene had the moxie to carry signs outside Bush's hated "Free Speech Zone," and they refused to submit when Manchester's Finest Federal Lapdogs tried to corral them into the designated ghetto.

Okay, I realize many MPD officers are decent and brave folks, who perhaps have just not thought this through.  But guys, now's the time to start.  If Feds or your supervisors are telling you to nix the First Amendment by cuffing Free Staters just for holding signs in an unobtrusive manner on a public sidewalk, they're giving you an unconstitutional  order.  You can read the First Amendment just as well as any judge.  Just say no.  Or be a lapdog...your pick.  Guess the next time this happens we'll find out whether I'm right in my belief that some of you have moral courage.

Russell and Kat are scheduled for arraignment between 8 and 9 a.m. March 1 and have asked everyone who supports free speech rights to join them in court.  The continually updating details are at NHfree.com or you can ring me at 603.721.1490.

[Dave Ridley]

BTW all you media hounds at the Keene Free Press may publish any of my LTEs on this thread that you wish, no need to ask in advance jus' do it!

[Kat Kanning]

Done.

[Dave Ridley]

(sent to Union Leader as an LTE)

MPD: Our defenders or Fed lapdogs?

Dear folks at the Union Leader:

I wasn't impressed by the Manchester Police Department's decision to arrest two libertarian demonstrators on Thursday, Feb. 9.  Of the many dozens of protesters present, only Kat Dillon and Russell Kanning of Keene had the moxie to carry signs outside the day's hated "Free Speech Zone," and they refused to submit when Manchester's Finest Federal Lapdogs tried to corral them into the designated ghetto.

Okay, I realize many MPD officers are decent and brave folks, who perhaps have just not thought this through.  But guys, now's the time to start.  If Feds or your supervisors are telling you to nix the First Amendment by cuffing Free Staters just for holding signs in an unobtrusive manner on a public sidewalk, they're giving you an unconstitutional  order.  You can read the First Amendment just as well as any judge.  Just say no.  Or be a lapdog...your pick.  Guess the next time this happens we'll find out whether I'm right in my belief that some of you have moral courage.

Russell and Kat are scheduled for arraignment between 8 and 9 a.m. March 1 and have asked everyone who supports free speech rights to join them in court.  The continually updating details are at NHfree.com or you can ring me at ______.

[Dreepa]

Here you go Jane!!
Published Saturday Feb 11th CM:

http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060211/REPOSITORY/602110335/1029/OPINION03

[CNHT]

Here you go Jane!!
Published Saturday Feb 11th CM:

http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060211/REPOSITORY/602110335/1029/OPINION03

Yeah I pledged to Kat I would do three, so I have one down and two to go!!!!!!!!!

Some relatives in Deerfield called me last night to tell me it was published.
Did I guess correctly that Arnold thinks he is conservative? But yet is advocating taxes?
This is just what we have been up against here in NH...it's as if taxes are expected and taken for granted and it's just a matter of how to use them.
Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me, but they are NOT!
This is what separates the RINOs from the real conservatives.

Right now I am wanting to get the ones about voter fraud published because we are soon to hear some PROPAGANDA from the AG's office to the contrary and our enemies on DFNH are already trying to use it against us. We need to pre-emptively strike....and NOW.

I will post the letters I am sending here....
After you see the subject/details you can also spin off and write some as well.

[Dreepa]

Now that Fitch has been promoted who is going to be in charge of going after Wetrovksy (sp?)...
We could blast that new person with letters.

[CNHT]

Now that Fitch has been promoted who is going to be in charge of going after Wetrovksy (sp?)...
We could blast that new person with letters.

GOOD THINKING! Because if we don't address the lack of voter fraud prosecution, and indeed the propaganda to assert that fraud does not even exist, we will soon have an income and sales tax both simply because we are outnumbered.

The case of Wetrosky is SO CUT AND DRIED that it CAN'T BE DENIED.

I am crafting a letter right now and will send to a large list of papers and post here as well.

This seems to be my top issue, and next is the 91-A being gutted by the NHMA all because they are now required to keep minutes.
But if it's over email or stamped 'draft' they can get away with secrecy.

HERE'S to keeping the 'sunshine' laws intact!!!!!!!!!!!! Very important tool for ourselves....needs protection!

PS - I'm workin' even on Sunday, doesn't that get me at least a few karma points? LOL

[CNHT]

Joshua Solomon LTE regarding Weare Souter Warrant Article dismemberment.

See http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/02122006/letters/87594.htm

8th letter, three other interesting letters prior to Solomon lte.

According to RSA 197:6 NO PETITIONED ARTICLE SHALL BE TAMPERED WITH.
See RSA 32 for exceptions to which petitioned citizens articles are not subject.
Whether you agreed with Logan or not, this illegal activity such as on the part of Kurk the moderator in Weare, IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED.

[Kat Kanning]

Yeah, Jane! 

[CNHT]

Yeah, Jane! 

Hey Katty girl! Good to see you on Friday night! What fun that was!

[aries]

How's this? I signed up for Kat's pledge and this is my first of the three (and hopefully more!)
Any factual/grammatical errors before I send it out?
This one's going to the Democrat, maybe the Lancaster Herald and Union Leader. Or is it in bad taste to send it to more than one paper?

In October 2005 Florida got it's first "shoot first" gun law. As the NRA rejoiced this surprisingly libertarian move, and the Brady Campaign cried foul, Floridians became some of the first to back up their right to bear arms with a right to use them for self-defense. The NRA is lobbying in the remaining 49 states for shoot first legislation, including, of course, New Hampshire.
   
   As it stands, if you are attacked in a public place in the state of New Hampshire, including your vehicle, you are armed with a legally owned firearm and you shoot and wound or kill the attacker, you face a long series of legal troubles and possibly a criminal record. The family of the victim is likely to sue, and in some cases has won, establishing that you may not have faced as immediate danger as it seemed. The law differs in your home - should a burglar enter your home, especially one armed, you are legally entitled to shoot the tresspasser, and in nearly every case, you will be cleared of any crime.
   
   When one applies for a conceal carry gun permit, an accepted reason for carrying a concealed weapon is self-defense. Why then, can defending onesself carry such harsh penalties? I don't know to be honest. Current law, which has been marred by inconsistent court decisions, expects a person to make an attempt to flee the scene before opening fire. Would you expect a young woman to turn her back on a rapist to flee? Would you turn your back on an attacker? A shoot first law in New Hampshire would allow you to defend yourself without fear of months spent in court. Many who have used a firearm for self-defense have already saved their own lives. In a largely rural state, where there is not a police officer at every corner, a law like this is something we need.
   
   Opponents of shoot first laws, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, overlook the fact that the law requires that you need to have been attacked or adequately threatened by an aggressor to open fire. They claim that anyone who feels "threatened" in a public place, such as during a heated confrontation, may open fire. This is not so. Though the terms of the Florida shoot first law (Bill S.0436.) are decidedly ambiguous, they leave room for courtroom interpretation, and the law does not prevent police from finding probable cause that the shooter was not justified in his or her shooting.
   
   When the shoot first legislation reaches New Hampshire, remember, whether or not you bear arms, it is your right to do so. Perhaps you do, maybe your neighbor does, but chances are somebody you know carries a gun at least occasionally, and the reason is most likely self defense. Don't let honest citizens who carry guns legally and without malicious intent fall victim to humiliating prosecution for defending their own inalienable right to life. When the time comes, please contact your state representatives in support of Shoot First.

[CNHT]

Send to as many as you wish but separately.