We learned at the recent Committee hearing in NH on CACR 32 that the US Constitution does not allow for dissolution of our union of States for any reason and that it is not even empowered to do so. Pursuant to the discussion of whether our Founders and those who […]

The post Shocking! 2nd Page of Declaration of Independence Unearthed After 245 Years appeared first on The Liberty Block.

• These are the most liberty-critical hearings for the week
• Click on the bill number to read the bill.
• Click on the committee name to email the committee your thoughts.

Of the 108 hearings in the House, we are recommending support of 13 and opposition of 16 with 22 being of interest.
Of the 27 hearings in the Senate, we are recommending support of 0 and opposition of 0 with 5 being of interest.

The post Bill Hearings for Week of January 31, 2022 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

A friend of mine asked me that question on the day of the historic hearing on CACR32, the legislation that would place the question of independence on the ballot if passed by the legislature. She supports liberty and state independence, but she was seriously concerned that we may not have any police if we cut ties with DC. 

The post Law Enforcement In The Republic Of New Hampshire appeared first on The Liberty Block.

On January 27, 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, Chief Judge Jeffrey Howard, ruled in “US Dep’t of Justice v. Jonas, No. 19-1243,” that the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) can “legally” access New Hampshire’s prescription drug database via an administrative subpoena, not a warrant. This is despite New Hampshire and United States laws to the contrary.

While 48 states have submitted to maintaining a networked prescription database (Prescription Drug Monitoring Program / PDMP), most people would argue that their personal medical and prescription records are protected by the 4th amendment (“no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”) Personal healthcare and medical information is generally protected under doctor-patient confidentiality laws and is regarded as almost sacrosanct in the healthcare world (think HIPAA.) In this case, confidentiality was further supported by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.

Overwhelming Support From the Liberty Community

Michelle Ricco Jonas, manager of the New Hampshire PDMP in 2018, refused the DEA’s request to fork over 2.5 years’ worth of prescription data of a “person of interest.” After being subpoenaed she argued that the records belong to the state, not an individual person. Since March 12, 2019, when the notice of appeal was docketed, Michelle Jonas and New Hampshire state received an outpouring of support from the ACLU of California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island – in other words, all the districts represented by the 1st Circuit Court.

Over the past two grueling years of appeal, the ACLU supported Jonas, and questioned whether issuing a subpoena to a state employee is within the bounds of the district court. They argued that medical records, for all intents and purposes, are considered private information. While the DEA has the ability to subpoena an individual, the ACLU asked if that gave them the right to subpoena a representative, or employee, of the state. They also argued that the 4th Amendment requires law enforcement “to obtain a warrant based on probable cause only to secure records over which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.” The ACLU argued that medical records warrant an expectation of privacy.

The prescription records at issue in this case reveal intimate, private, and potentially stigmatizing details about patients’ health, including details of those patients’ underlying medical conditions. For that reason, as with other medical records, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in them.” – Summary of Argument, US Dep’t of Justice v. Jonas, No. 19-1243

So What Was the Loophole?

In a nutshell, the “third-party doctrine” was the loophole the DEA used to secure a “victory” in this appeal. Basically, if you voluntarily share information with a third party (say a pharmacist at CVS who fills your prescription), you magically lose your right to the 4th amendment because you voluntarily shared your private information.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. You have to share that private information in order to receive your prescription medications through lawful means. If you wanna live, if you wanna beat that disease, you have to give your name, address, phone number, and all the information they need so you can just get your pills. Right? So what exactly is the alternative? The grey market? Street drugs? A life of crime?

The Feds Will Stop at Nothing to Support the Prison-Industrial Complex

It seems obvious that personal medical information is personal. We share that information with medical professionals with the expectation that their oaths of ethics and doctor-patient confidentiality will keep it that way. Everywhere we go we see “HIPAA” emblazoned there, telling us how seriously our personal medical information is treated, at the risk of sanctions, medical license removal, and prison time. Medical professionals have an entire course in this topic, and it’s included in their jurisprudence board exams.

There’s really no way to “logic” around this ruling; it’s pretty cut and dried. The DEA will stop at nothing to reach their quotas, to perpetuate the prison-industrial complex, and to erode our Constitutional rights. Unfortunately this is one of many similar rulings in the United States.

It’s up to us to continue fighting for freedom, liberty, and our Constitutional rights. It’s up to us to determine if this is acceptable or whether it’s about time we stand up against this onslaught and say, “I’m not gonna take this anymore!”

I want you to get up right now. Sit up. Go to your windows. Open them and stick your head out and yell – ‘I’m as mad as hell and I’m not gonna take this anymore!’ Things have got to change. But first, you’ve gotta get mad! You’ve got to say, I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE! Then we’ll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first, get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!” – “Network” movie, 1976

Side Note

As of January 27, 2022, the exact date upon which this appeal was concluded, the presiding 1st Circuit Judge Jeffrey Howard announced his early retirement at the age of 66. This was the last case he will hear, and thankfully, the last case he will rule on.

Sources

• 1st Circuit’s lone Replican-appointed judge to step down from active service
• New Hampshire fights DEA bid to access drug database without a warrant
• Medical prescription warrantless searches get new challenge
• United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (19-1243)
• Docket for Case #: 19-1243
• United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard
• What is the prison-industrial complex?
• Fourth amendment
• 19-1243 judgment summary
• Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs)

Legislation proposed by nine Republicans in the New Hampshire House would compel the Attorney General to request information from the federal government regarding their law enforcement activities in our state. 

The post Bill Would Ask DC To Report Federal Law Enforcement Activity In NH appeared first on The Liberty Block.

This is an e-mail I sent to NH state reps around Jan 26, 2022.

—–

RepFolk: Here are some reasons you should feel “Constitutionally comfortable” voting for CACR 32…the right of the people to vote on whether we keep being ruled by an empire that starts a new war at our expense every three years or so.

What’s nice about the U.S. Constitution is that you generally don’t have to be a “Constitutional scholar” to understand it.

1) The Tenth Amendment makes the U.S. Constitution innocent of banning independence, until proven guilty. It reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” By default, “the powers,” thus includes the power of states and/or their voters to divorce D.C. In order for the U.S. to lawfully wield a power preventing that, such power would have to be “delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” Where does that Constitution clearly grant such power to D.C.? Why are the “anti-independence” Constitutional passages cited so unclear on this question when compared to the clarity of “The Tenth?”

2) Even if we were to assume, for the sake of discussion, that the Constitutional arguments against independence were valid…that leaves a different problem for Remainers. No one could credibly argue that the U.S. government has complied with its Constitution…not even during the last two hours, let alone the last two centuries. Have they voided their contract, perhaps millions of times? If they are not required to follow their Constitution, why are we?

3) If one could argue that the U.S. Constitution forbids the public from voting on independence this year, one could just as easily argue that the pre-existing NH Constitution *demands* it this year. Article 10 reads: “…whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government.” Has Washington endangered – or not endangered – “public liberty?” Are you currently able to “redress” your grievances with D.C.?

4) You face, perhaps for the first time, legislation which would actually end the central government’s practice of running employment bans and overseas TORTURE CHAMBERS* at NH taxpayer expense. Why have some of your House colleagues apparently picked *this* moment to begin pretending they follow either Constitution?

Dave Ridley
NHexit.com
“Independence without enmity”

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

That exact question was asked by a state legislator during the historic first public hearing in a legislative body on the question of independence in at least 160 years. While it may sound extreme, it is a reasonable question. 

The post Taxes & Welfare In The Republic of New Hampshire appeared first on The Liberty Block.

“What would healthcare look like in an independent New Hampshire once we leave the union?”, a middle-aged woman asked from the crowd during the press conference for CACR32. I have been asked this question many times over the past few months, and it is a fair concern. Let’s explore what healthcare in the Republic of New Hampshire may look like after the inevitable collapse of DC and the union.

The post Healthcare In The Republic of New Hampshire appeared first on The Liberty Block.

I’d like to ask you to look back on your childhood memories and try to think of a show, movie, or book that was meant for children that you were shown or read to as a child. There has been a large swath of children’s media produced throughout the years, from Schoolhouse Rock and Barney to Paw Patrol and My Little Pony.

The post Tuttle Twins: A Fair Review appeared first on The Liberty Block.

Rep. Leah Cushman presents HB 1022 at the public hearing on 1/18/22

On January 12, 2022, Rep. Leah Cushman (R – NH) introduced New Hampshire HB 1022: an act permitting pharmacists to dispense the drug ivermectin by means of a standing order entered into by licensed healthcare professionals. The general argument is that many healthcare workers are unable to prescribe ivermectin, either because of hospital politics or outside pressures. This bill would override the need for a prescription for ivermectin, allowing everyone in New Hampshire to pick it up over-the-counter.

A public hearing for this bill took place on January 18, 2022. Rep. Cushman, House committee (Health, Human Services, & Elderly Affairs) members, doctors, and others took part in a lively discussion that spanned over two hours. The overall consensus appeared to be in favor of the bill, with a few speakers pleading that those who cannot (or do not) get the covid-19 vaccine need another readily-available, tried, and tested alternative.

The Benefits of Ivermectin Are Well Established

The only medicine for infectious diseases to win the Nobel Prize has recently been smeared in the mainstream media. Surprised? There are innumerable studies that have overwhelmingly shown the benefits of this drug to combat all types of disease. The difference is that now the media has portrayed it as livestock medicine, and nobody can seem to counteract the bad press–not even Joe Rogan.

However, most of those in attendance, including multiple committee members, fully supported pushing this bill further. Even those who believe that vaccines are the best option had to admit that withholding medicine to those who cannot or do not get the vaccine doesn’t make sense. In fact, people who have received the vaccine can benefit from ivermectin as well.

Dr. Paul Marik Was in Attendance

One speaker of note was Dr. Paul Marik, who traveled to the public hearing for NH HB 1022 all the way from Virginia.

A former professor of medicine & chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Dr. Marik famously sued the hospital he worked for in an effort to prescribe ivermectin to his patients with covid-19. The health system his hospital is part of has banned ivermectin. He ended up resigning in disgust December 31, 2021. During his public arguments in favor of HB 1022, Dr. Marik described ivermectin as “cheap, exceedingly safe, and exceedingly effective.”

If ivermectin had been promoted at the beginning of this pandemic, we would not be sitting here today.” – Dr. Paul Marik, NH HB 1022 public hearing, 1/18/22

Watch the Full 2 Hour Public Hearing Below: (6:01:00 – 8:00:00)

What’s Next?

The next steps are for the House Committee on Health, Human Services, & Elderly Affairs to deliberate, and eventually hold an executive session where NH HB 1022 will be voted on by attending committee members. Executive sessions are open to the public, but at the time of this writing no date has yet been set. Stay tuned!

Brodie Deshaies at the hearing looking guilty while Carla Gericke calls him out for using scare tactics

Representative Brodie Deshaies from Wolfeboro, New Hampshire testified in front of the State-Federal Relations and Veteran Affairs Committee on January 20, 2022 concerning CACR 32. The legislation seeks to let the people of New Hampshire vote to amend the Constitution and become an independent nation, breaking ties with DC. He was the legislator asked by the committee chairman to do the bulk of the research before the hearing.

Looking closely at all the claims Deshaies made about the legality of this bill and the implications concerning lawmakers voting to recommend that the House pass it, it is hard to decide if he is ignorant and easily swayed by empire-loving “constitutional scholars” from DC or if he gave a speech full of lies to sway the vote. He used fear-mongering language directed at the committee, implying that they may be charged by Washington DC if they vote ‘Ought To Pass’ and supported the bill through the legal process. This article is a close-up look at his claims and will look at all the material he references to see if he is really making a constitutional argument against CACR 32.

Deshaies starts off with an acknowledgment of how the public perceives him. “There are some people who are pretty upset with me in the room,” he says. This is already very indicative of his character. He sent Elliot “Alu” Axelman (the editor-in-chief of LibertyBlock.com and the author of multiple books on secession) an email full of misinterpretations of the US and New Hampshire Constitutions a few weeks ago. When Alxelman politely asked if he wished to engage in a public debate on the topic, Deshaies cowered and declined. Without the opportunity to debate Deshaies, and with no legislator agreeing to debate him, Alu published his rebuttal to Deshaies’ anti-independence letter on his website. The article destroys the few arguments that the anti-freedom legislator sought to make in his letter. Instead, Deshaies went on to publish the exact same letter in an op-ed article on NHJournal.com. So, now we know he knows how people feel about his twisting of the facts, but he just goes on to ignore the people and doubles down on his way of thinking. We see from this very first sentence that he isn’t the sort of person who feels he should be in office doing what the people of New Hampshire want. He feels he’s in office to rule over the citizens of New Hampshire with an iron fist.

He goes on to say that after speaking to many “constitutional scholars” such as David Williams, author of “The Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment”, that he believes this committee was engaged in a “constitutional process” by voting Ought to Pass or Inexpedient to Legislate. Which means every vote cast is “aiding in the constitutional process,” and “approving it at each time along the way”.

Deshaies claims, “Every vote cast has a constitutional ramification judging by amendment fourteen of the US Constitution, section three. Some scholars would argue that this is rebelling, even if it’s peaceful. This very well could be an argument where voting for this, aiding and abetting in that process could very well be unconstitutional.”

So, there it is, folks. Deshaies spoke to a man who wrote a book arguing that the second amendment doesn’t really give all Americans the right to bear arms for advice on what the Constitution says. Then, he came up with a clever way to subtly scare the other members of the committee out of voting Ought to Pass on this bill. He used a mildly veiled threat of ‘insurrection’ and ‘rebellion’ to convince everyone on the committee to vote 21-0 against recommending the bill to be passed. Even the two committee members who told Axelman that they would support the legislation ultimately caved to the fear and voted to kill it.

Amendment Fourteen Section Three of the US Constitution is written in legalese, so here is an explanation of it from AnnenbergClassroom.org;

“Amendment XIV, Section 3 prohibits any person who had gone to war against the union or given aid and comfort to the nation’s enemies from running for federal or state office, unless Congress by a two-thirds vote specifically permitted it”.

This has nothing to do with a committee in New Hampshire voting ‘Ought to Pass’ on a bill that would allow the citizens of New Hampshire to vote to become an independent nation. The representatives already took their oaths. Hopefully, if they had gone to war against the federal government, that would have been looked into before they were sworn in. That is what the fourteenth amendment, section three is discussing. It’s a far cry from allowing the people the chance to possibly vote on peacefully separating from their abusive rulers in DC.

Even if the part of the US Constitution Deshaies cited was relevant, voting Ought to Pass on CACR 32 would not constitute rebellion. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, rebellion is defined as “Deliberate, organized resistance, by force and arms, to the laws or operations of the government, committed by a subject”. It is ridiculous to assert that by allowing an amendment of the New Hampshire Constitution to appear on the ballot by proper peaceful and lawful procedure, his fellow committee members would be engaging in violent resistance against the federal government. If Granite Staters voted and it became law, we would immediately no longer be a part of the federal government. That would not be rebelling, that would be peaceful separation.

Deshaies goes on to say that part one, article ten of the New Hampshire constitution does not apply to the federal government. The referenced article reads, “Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” It does not specify “The New Hampshire government can be reformed or a new state government established.” It simply uses the word “government.” The authors of the NH Constitution were smart enough to know the difference. If they intended for the article to apply only to the state government, they would have said so. Brodie Deshaies gives no explanation for why he thinks article ten only applies to the state government. The right of revolution isn’t specifically granted to the federal government in the US Constitution, and according to the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, that means that right is delegated to the states. Thankfully, the New Hampshire Constitution has this right clearly and articulately established. Granite Staters have the right to reform any government that has become perverse and/or establish a new one. CACR 32 would seek to reform the state government we have by striking all references to the United States in the New Hampshire Constitution, state statutes, and regulations.

Deshaies does acknowledge that people in New Hampshire today are upset about the amount of powers the federal government claims to have over them. He says “New Hampshire lost some of that sovereignty because we accepted federal dollars and we ceded a number of responsibilities. Now, we’re still sovereign, technically, over this. We can, through the constitutional process, freely take back those powers. It just means we’re going to have to be giving up the carrots. We took the carrot, we get the stick.” I’m not sure what carrot he’s referring to, because the federal government does nothing but leech off of New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a donor state, meaning Granite Staters pay hundreds of millions per year more in taxes to the federal government than the state government receives back in funding. Also, I’m pretty sure that the saying has to do with getting the carrot OR the stick. Brodie Deshaies would be free to move to another state if Granite Staters voted to leave the union and keep their wealth. Massachusetts is less than 100 miles from his house, and there he can take all the carrots and sticks he wants from the federal government.

Continuing to speak about the constitutional process, Deshaies says, “I think people are misguided and they’re providing an answer that isn’t the right answer, that isn’t the constitutional answer. They’re trying to work outside of the constitutional government to get this done.” That just isn’t true. CACR 32 went through all the proper channels and is a valid constitutional amendment. Just because Deshaies doesn’t think it is the right answer doesn’t mean Granite Staters should not be allowed to vote on the issue. He would be allowed to vote on the ballot like everyone else. The people deserve to have their say. As far as secession movements go, this is literally the most legal, peaceful method of seceding that any state has ever attempted in human history.

After the meeting, Joa of Breaking the Flaw confronted Deshaies publicly in the hallway of the Legislative Office Building and asked him why he would oppose this legislation so heavily and asked if he believed he was really representing the people. Deshaies stated, “I’ve had more constituents contact me to oppose it than I’ve had, you know I had two contact me to oppose it and I haven’t had any contact me to support it.” Deshaies didn’t represent his constituents that day if he believes two people contacting him to oppose CACR 32 is good enough for him to get in front of the committee and misrepresent what the US and New Hampshire Constitutions say to scare the committee into voting Inexpedient to Legislate for fear of being prosecuted by the federal government for rebellion.

Next, CACR 32 will go in front of the full House for a roll call vote, possibly on February 15th. Contact your representative and tell them you want them to defend democracy by supporting this bill, so that the people of New Hampshire can vote on it in November of 2022.

The legislation seeks to let the people of New Hampshire vote to amend the Constitution and become an independent nation, breaking ties with DC.

The post Rep. Brodie Deshaies: Ignorant Or Liar? appeared first on The Liberty Block.

In this technologically advanced society, we now find ourselves living in, the inevitable question of the relationship between the government and the governed must be asked and discussed. What is this relationship now?  

The post The Union’s New Identity Crisis appeared first on The Liberty Block.

Captain Kickass’ “COVID Carols” – Click for Printable PDF.

In December of 2020, we gave you a super-fun Christmas gift in the form of the COVID Carols songsheet!  At the time, Captain Kickass wrote some awesome parody lyrics to four classic Christmas songs and you can download a PDF of the lyrics here to sing them yourself!

This Winter, the Captain has taken the time to produce a three-song EP and is offering them on his website, which features a bunch of other parody songs.

You can listen to them all for free and then buy the record for whatever price you want to pay!  Check them out on his Bandcamp page here.

Featuring:

• “The Lockdowns Are Dumb” – to the tune of “Little Drummer Boy”
• “Do you fear what I fear?” – to the tune of “Do you hear what I hear?”
• “Sterile Little Christmas” – to the tune of “Have yourself a merry little Christmas”

This bill would give police the right to tell any person they must stay back at least 30 feet.

A new bill was introduced to the NH House on January 5, 2022 that, if passed, could have serious, far-reaching consequences for 1st amendment auditors and anyone attempting to witness or film police interactions in New Hampshire.  

Introduced by Rep. Al Baldasaro (R – Rockingham 5) and cosponsored by Rep. David Love, Rep. Vanessa Sheehan, Sen. Sharon Carson, Sen. Bob Giuda, and other Republicans, the bill attempts to add an 11th section to Chapter 642 of the Criminal Code; (642:11 Impeding or Provoking a Law Enforcement Officer.) 

NH HB 1025 was presented to the New Hampshire House Committee on January 19, 2022. Committee members voted unanimously to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate) status for this bill. Nineteen of the 21 members were present, with a final vote in favor of ITL: “Yea” – 19 votes; “Nay” – 0 votes; with 2 not voting. You can view the vote in the video below (48:35 – 52:10.)

In essence, the update would give police vague avenues by which to arrest someone if they deem that person is “interrupting, disrupting, hindering, impeding, or interfering” in any way with their police work. What one officer deems “disrupting” another may deem perfectly fine, so this appears to leave the door open for interpretation. It also leaves the door open for policing based on “feelings.” Generally when things are left open to interpretation based on “feelings” it is our Constitutional rights that go by the wayside. 

This bill would give police the right to tell any person that they must stay back at least 30 feet from any scene, for any reason. For example, if you’ve been told to stay back, and continue to approach, they could slap you with a class A misdemeanor for “interference” or any one of those other terms they’ll have at their behest. If a police officer tells you to stay back and you’re closer than 30 feet, if you don’t move back to the 30 foot mark, they could slap you with a class A misdemeanor. If an officer “feels” you’re provoking a physical response, same drill. See how this works?  

Impeding or Provoking a Law Officer (642:11)

• I. After receiving a verbal warning from a law enforcement officer not to approach, no person shall:
• (a) Violate such warning and approach;
• (b) Remain within 30 feet of a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the lawful performance of any legal duty with the intent to:
• (1) Interrupt, disrupt, hinder, impede, or interfere with the law enforcement officer   s ability to perform such duty; or
• (2) Provoke a physical response from the law enforcement officer.
• II. A person who violates this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
• 2  Effective Date.  This act shall take effect January 1, 2023.

How Might This Affect the Filming of Police in New Hampshire?

The bill clearly states that if an officer verbally warns you not to approach, you cannot approach that officer or that scene at all: “After receiving a verbal warning from a law enforcement officer not to approach, no person shall violate such warning and approach.”

While HB 1025 does detail a 30-foot-distance rule once a person has been told to step back, it does not detail at what distance an officer is allowed to initially shout to you that you mustn’t approach a scene. Could it be a warning they shout at you from 100 feet away? What about when you’re 300 feet away? If they just don’t “feel” like “dealing” with someone filming them, could they technically shout to you from any distance not to approach?  

Many times, as we’ve seen in the news, video footage of police encounters is what clears the innocent and brings responsibility to police actions. This bill would allow the police to bar virtually any person from any scene that they deem a nuisance. When the ability to film police encounters is diminished, our Constitutional freedoms quickly follow. What starts as 15 feet will become 30 feet, then 50.

Breaking the Flaw, a well-known New Hampshire videographer, had this to say about the new bill: “As someone who likes to witness police interactions with a camera, I find it absurd that the direction of this bill will limit our ability for government transparency.”

Similar Legislation is Popping Up All Over

Recently, Rep. John Kavanaugh (R – Arizona), an ex-police officer, sponsored a bill that would require “anyone with a camera” to stay 15 feet away from a scene or police officer in Arizona. According to a MSM report dated 1/22/22, “The lawmaker said he has been approached by officers in Tucson who were concerned that people recording them were getting too close for the officers’ and their own safety.” 

In July of 2021, Rep. Alex Rizo (R – Florida) introduced a bill very similar in wording to New Hampshire HB 1025, making it unlawful to “interrupt, disrupt, hinder, impede, or interfere” with a police officer within 30 feet. Under Florida HB 11, any person who is deemed by an officer to cause a disturbance faces a 2nd degree misdemeanor. What constitutes a disturbance is completely based on how the officer “feels” in a given situation.

In May of 2021, Governor Kevin Stitt (R – Oklahoma) signed HB 1643, which took effect Nov. 1, 2021. Under this legislation, it’s unlawful to post a video or photo of a police officer with “threatening intent” (as defined by a judge or prosecutor.) In addition, HB 2273 makes it unlawful to publish any personally identifiable information of a law enforcement officer, including in video recordings. This includes an officer’s name, birth date, address, telephone number, driver license number, Social Security number, or place of employment, and includes “a photograph or any other realistic likeness of the person.”

Safety From Scrutiny

By “officer safety” they perhaps really mean “safety from scrutiny.”

Long has it been a curious thing to ponder how a camera can affect officer safety. If anything, filming the police has led to increased public safety by holding armed thugs with shiny badges accountable for their actions. While I can think of many examples of filming the police resulting in public safety, I can’t think of many instances where filming the police led to the police being harmed somehow. By “officer safety” they perhaps really mean “safety from scrutiny.”

“It’s hard to see such a blanket ban as anything but a targeted assault on First Amendment activity,” says Ari Cohn, a First Amendment lawyer who works at TechFreedom, a think tank dedicated to technology issues. “Cops have long tried claiming that the act of filming them in itself obstructs their ability to do their job…and now that this argument failed, they are rather transparently trying to create a safe space from observation by the people they are sworn to serve.”

What You Can Do

• Contact your representatives
• Contact the ACLU
• Attend legislative sessions
• Know your rights
• Always film the police!

In October of 2021, nine peaceful people were arrested at a well-attended executive council meeting. It started when armed state goons approached activists Frank “Footloose” Staples and Terese Grinnell and requested they to follow them to a partitioned area in the back of the room. Once out of sight of the packed audience, the thugs arrested Footloose and Terese, causing them to verbally announce what was happening. Prior to being asked to walk out, the two were sitting in the audience quietly, so they are still unsure regarding why they were arrested in the first place, as they didn’t make any noise prior to the arrest. So far, the court process has yet to clarify the situation.

Seven other people were also arrested for speaking out during the arrests of Footloose and Terese. The “New Hampshire Nine” had a court hearing on Friday to deal with some pending motions and unlike the rest of the Nine, Footloose is representing himself in the case. If you’ve seen his other videos, you know that means it won’t be dull. Here’s a video with highlights from his visit, including he and other activists bravely refusing to stop recording when threatened by a masked court goon. You can see the full uncut series of videos he recorded at Concord district court on his Odysee.

It’s also worth noting that there is an unconstitutional “Supreme Court” of NH order in place prohibiting recording in all parts of state courthouses except the courtrooms themselves. Those restrictions were put in place because of Keene activists recording over a decade ago and haven’t been meaningfully challenged ever since. Kudos to New Hampshire native Footloose for standing up for the right to record and the right to transparency. It was nice to see him back down the armed goon AND he did it while on bail conditions for his previous ridiculous victimless arrests.

Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest on his saga.

• These are the most liberty-critical hearings for the week
• Click on the bill number to read the bill.
• Click on the committee name to email the committee your thoughts.

Of the 118 hearings in the House, we are recommending support of 17 and opposition of 22 with 17 being of interest.
Of the 70 hearings in the Senate, we are recommending support of 2 and opposition of 2 with 7 being of interest.

The post Bill Hearings for Week of January 24, 2022 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

The Representatives told reporters that they have unearthed a new document that casts strong doubts on the legitimacy of the document which officially marked the colonies’ secession from the Kingdom of Britain in 1776. 

The post Legislation Seeks To Repeal The Declaration of Independence appeared first on The Liberty Block.

Concord, New Hampshire - A Republican State Representative has filed a bill to clarify that drinking water should be considered a crime in New Hampshire because it violates the US Constitution. 

The post New Hampshire Rep: Drinking Water Is Unconstitutional appeared first on The Liberty Block.

It was standing-room-only this Thursday afternoon as the state house Federal Relations committee held a historic hearing on CACR 32, likely the first-ever proposed constitutional amendment to peacefully declare independence from the United States.  Freedom-loving activists packed the large-sized room, nearly forcing the hearing into Rep’s Hall, which can hold four hundred.  Many people testified in favor of the bill and with the exception of a few Empire Loyalist state reps who spoke against it, everyone else who spoke was in favor of it, except for one guy.  I was able to get independent video of the entire three-hour hearing as well as the press conference prior to it.  Thank you to everyone who turned out.

Here’s the full hearing video:

Here’s the press conference prior to the hearing:

Unfortunately, the committee voted 21-0 against the proposed amendment. NHexit.US has the full story and video of the committee’s discussion and vote.