If you weren’t already aware… a government is simply a monopoly on the use of violence. Only the government and its agents can initiate violence without facing consequence. As I am not an anarchist, I do support this notion: the monopoly on force.
What I do NOT support is the State of New Hampshire gang as it exists having a monopoly on the use of violence. I’ve seen the gang as it is constituted violate peoples rights with impunity and engage in countless acts of hypocrisy. The common citizen gets punished and put through the meat-grinder-of-a-system for doing things that the elite and connected gang members do with impunity. As George Orwell cleverly put it: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
New Hampshire RSA 594:5 is really the pinnacle of the force monopoly in the Free State. This law requires you to submit to arrest whether or not the arrest is legal. It reads, in full: “If a person has reasonable ground to believe that he is being arrested and that the arrest is being made by a peace officer, it is his duty to submit to arrest and refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting it, regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest.”
Effectively you have no choice but to submit to an arrest… even if you know it is complete and utter bullshit. I believe this pinnacle of a law is in direct conflict with Part I, Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution (The Right of Revolution).
That 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.”
The Constitution says that the doctrine of nonresistance to arbitrary power and oppression is absurd — but state law requires you under the penalty of criminal charges to offer absolutely zero resistance to arbitrary power and oppression.
See where I’m going with this?
I spent some time doing legal research on this topic and playing with AI on the matter. It is my belief that RSA 594:5 (and RSA 642:2, the law that criminalizes resisting arrest) simply cannot withstand a Part I, Article 10 challenge as the Constitution makes it very clear that what the statue demands be done in all circumstances is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
The following is written by a combination of AI and myself… but I think it’s worth the read. Thinking back to State v. Jason Talley, I believe that Jason could have constitutionally resisted arrest by the bailiffs by using escalating force when he was arrested for simply having a camera… as the court rules that were enacted were created by arbitrary power that reinforced a higher class of men than the position that Jason held in society.
Some animals are more equal than others, right?
Argument that RSA 594:5 Violates Part I, Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution
RSA 594:5, New Hampshire’s state policy on resisting arrest, states in part: “… it is his duty to submit to arrest and refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting it, regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest.”
This law mandates passive submission to any arrest, even if unlawful, under penalty of criminal charges. While ostensibly neutral, its application in cases like State v. Jason Talley reveals how it perpetuates a system of unequal justice, favoring a protected class of government officials—particularly judges and law enforcement—over ordinary citizens. This creates “two classes of men” in New Hampshire, directly contravening Part I, Article 10 of the state constitution, which declares:
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.
Article 10 explicitly rejects government structures that privilege a select class, labeling nonresistance to such oppression as “absurd” and “slavish.” RSA 594:5, by enforcing submission to arbitrary or illegal arrests, enables precisely this perversion, shielding official misconduct while criminalizing citizen resistance. The Talley case exemplifies this systemic inequality, demonstrating why the statute fails constitutional scrutiny.
Factual Background from State v. Jason Talley
In 2011, activist Ademo Freeman engaged in a non-threatening interaction with Keene District Court Judge Edward Burke, captured on video.
The footage shows no actual threat, yet Judge Burke made false claims to law enforcement that a threat was made, violating laws against false reports—a criminal act if committed by a civilian.
Instead of facing consequences, Burke’s actions prompted supervisory judges to issue administrative orders banning recording devices in court facilities, restricting citizens’ First Amendment rights to free speech and press under the guise of security.
This ban directly led to the 2012 arrest of Jason Talley, a military veteran and independent journalist, who was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest for merely possessing a camera in a Cheshire County Superior Court common area.
Talley’s charges stemmed from non-compliance with the unlawful ban, which originated from Burke’s unpunished misconduct. The case was ultimately dismissed due to a prosecutorial technical error, interpreted by observers as a deliberate avoidance of litigating the underlying judicial impropriety.
No judges faced discipline; instead, the system protected its own, using the incident to justify broader restrictions on public accountability through recording.
Talley’s camera was seized and not returned, further illustrating the one-sided application of power.
How RSA 594:5 Creates and Protects “Two Classes of Men”
This sequence exposes a dual standard: Judges like Burke can fabricate threats, summon arrests, and evade accountability, while citizens like Talley must submit to resulting unlawful detentions or face escalated charges under RSA 642:2. RSA 594:5’s “regardless of whether there is a legal basis” clause effectively immunizes official overreach, allowing a class of government actors to wield arbitrary power without immediate pushback.
Citizens, stripped of the right to resist even patently illegal arrests, are relegated to post-hoc remedies like lawsuits—remedies often futile against a self-protecting judiciary. Article 10 condemns this exact setup as a perversion of government for the “private interest…of [a] class of men.” Here, the judicial and enforcement class benefits: Misconduct goes unchecked, rights-restricting orders are issued without repercussion, and the statute enforces citizen compliance, perpetuating the imbalance.
Nonresistance to such “arbitrary power and oppression” is deemed “absurd” and “destructive,” yet RSA 594:5 mandates it, clashing irreconcilably with the constitution’s core principle.
Constitutional Challenge: Facial and As-Applied Invalidity
Facially, RSA 594:5 invites abuse by any authority figure, enabling a system where government serves insiders over the “whole community.” It lacks safeguards against unlawful arrests, assuming good faith from enforcers—a fallacy exposed by cases like Talley. As-applied, in contexts of judicial misconduct, it amplifies inequality: Talley could not resist an arrest rooted in a judge’s false claim without invoking the statute, while the judge faced no equivalent duty or penalty. New Hampshire courts have recognized Article 10 as a bulwark against unequal government structures, interpretable as incorporating equal protection principles.
By facilitating a protected class’s impunity, RSA 594:5 endangers “public liberty” without “effectual” redress, triggering the right to “reform” via invalidation. Upholding it would endorse “slavish” submission, contradicting the article’s rejection of nonresistance.
In sum, RSA 594:5 cannot survive Article 10 scrutiny because it institutionalizes the very class-based perversion the constitution abhors, as vividly demonstrated in State v. Jason Talley.
If lawfully challenged… the statute must be struck down to restore government for the common benefit.