Cop Block

The write-up below by Nathan Larson highlights the arbitrary customs of courts to underscore a larger issue – the harm that occurs when individuals mindlessly follow rituals that serve only to pay homage to the State.

Cop Block typically focuses on the abuse perpetrated by those who wear badges and the subsequent lack of accountability. However, due to the militarization of policing, more peaceful actions being classified as “illegal”, and more individuals refusing to take plea deals based on their principles, seeing the inside of a courtroom isn’t implausible (see links below for some examples).

As Nathan outlines, the symbolism present in court is just one example of its prevalence (and conditioning) throughout society, which underscores the need to think for yourself and not grant another individual, whether they wear a piece of metal  on their chest or a black robe, authority simply because its claimed.

———————————-

There are certain courtroom rituals that, while not necessarily specified in any law or rule, are nonetheless traditions commonly used to the lay participants into a habit of obedience. Whole treatises have been written about how the juror’s oath is used to deceive jurors into thinking they can be held into contempt for conscientiously refusing to convict a defendant who violated the law. Then there are the practices of addressing the judge as “Your Honor,” and of rising when the judge enters the courtroom.

Why is everyone expected to stand when the judge enters? It is probably because standing is culturally identified as a gesture of respect and honor. In certain religions, e.g. Judaism, one stands to pray to the Deity. Americans are sometimes asked to stand for the national anthem or the pledge of allegiance. A standing ovation is viewed as a sign of higher acclaim than a sitting one. When I went to a British-style private school, there was a rule requiring the students to stand whenever a woman entered the room. Soldiers stand to salute the flag or when an officer enters the room. The list goes on.

But why should we make a special gesture of respect for the judge that we wouldn’t make for others? He is merely a political hack who achieved his position by doing whatever was necessary to satisfy the pressure groups and/or politicians in charge of judicial appointments. And, at the time of the command to rise, he has done nothing special to deserve acclaim; he has not delivered any brilliant speech in favor of high ideals, or laid his life down for the greater good. All he did was walk in through a door.

Further, whether one believes in popular sovereignty (rule of the majority of voters) or individual sovereignty (rule of each person over himself), the judge’s office, or the court, should not be elevated above the common citizen (s), even symbolically. In a republic, the people elect the judge either directly or by electing the politicians who appoint the judges. They also directly or indirectly create the laws that bind the judge. In a system of “anarchy,” on the other hand, each individual is in charge of ruling himself, and any institutions for mutual protection are derived from contracts entered into by the willing. Either way, the citizenry, or citizen, must be regarded as the final source of all legitimate government (governments deriving any just powers they might have only from the consent of the governed), so why should we be making gestures of submission to the judge, rather than the judge signalling submission to the sovereign people?

I think this tradition serves as a subtle psychological trick. Salespeople and demagogues know that by getting a person or audience to answer “Yes” to a series of relatively uncontroversial statements, they will be more primed to respond “Yes” when they quickly follow with the decisive question. Governments and other organizations, too, often like to use compliance rituals early in certain proceedings in order to set the tone for the events to follow. An example would be the pledge of allegiance or the quasi-religious moment of silence, which begins the school day for many students. It is intended to remind the students of their place in the political or religious scheme of things. Their submission to this compulsory activity primes them for a whole day of submission to higher authority.

The Washington, DC-based museum of the Laogai (the system of Chinese prison camps) has a catechism-like set of phrases on the wall that prisoners were required to repeat periodically, reaffirming their status as lawbreakers in need of correction. It was, obviously, intended to assist in conditioning a certain response to subsequent instructions. Likewise, beginning the court proceedings with a gesture of obedience to an arbitrary command helps establish a mood that will, however subtly, help nudge people in the direction of meek compliance to the authority of the courtroom. The audience’s participation in this pointless ritual makes even them players in this drama (court proceedings are, after all, like theater designed to tug at people’s heartstrings in certain ways and stimulate knee-jerk responses to convincing-sounding, but fallacious arguments), and distracts from the political realities behind what is going on. The display of pomp stirs people to awe, so that they are less likely to think of the baser goings-on (e.g. backroom political deals over legislation and judicial appointments) that led to this scene taking place.

When I went to court, I decided to experiment to see what would happen if I didn’t stand. When the magistrate judge came in and the bailiff commanded us to rise, I remained seated. The U.S. Marshall ordered, “When we tell you to stand, stand!” Then two of them then twisted my arms rather painfully and forced me to my feet. The transcript records this colloquy (U.S. v. Larson, case no. 10-4964, 10th Circuit, J.A. 24-25):

MR. LARSON: I question the officer being able to lay hands on me to make me stand. THE COURT: Well, you need to stand because that’s just one of the rules that whenever anybody addresses the Court or when the Court or when the Court is addressing anyone, that they need to stand. And so, that’s just the way things are. If you refuse to comply with that, then they were required to assist you in standing. Once you were standing in compliance with that rule, then they have taken their hands off you, and you’ve been able to, obviously, participate in the proceedings as you should be able to participate. So, that’s — that was that situation. Any other questions at this time? MR. LARSON: Where is that rule? THE COURT: Where is that rule? I think it’s just standard practice to stand when you’re being addressed in court.

Nicholas von Hoffman once said in reference to the pledge of allegiance, “Unthinkingly reciting words whenever one is told to do so is either ridiculous or imbecilic or an obedience drill for a people already susceptible to group think.” The government imposes many obedience drills these days, but typically — as in the case of security searches at airports and government offices — there is some excuse for why they are necessary. The command to rise for the court, on the other hand, has no legitimate function, much less a purpose worthy of enforcement by laying hands on people. Therefore, we should look for opportunities to resist, when the benefits seem worth the costs.

Sometimes a defendant will find himself in a position of having little or nothing to lose by resisting. An example might be a terminally ill medical cannabis defendant who already knows he will die in jail while awaiting trial. Or he may have an important enough audience that the benefits of resisting (such as inspiring the observers) will outweigh the costs, in his eyes. In such cases, one might want to refuse to stand.

Audience members, too, can resist participation in the obedience drill. As any prisoner knows, many situations arise in which it is possible to disobey with impunity. An example would be at the end of a meal, when the correctional officer orders all the prisoners to clear out of the cafeteria so that cleanup can begin. If enough other prisoners remain eating, it is safe to stay awhile longer, because it would be inconvenient for that staff to try to discipline all the stragglers. Likewise, in a courtroom, when the command is given to rise, an audience member might wish to delay complying until almost everyone else has risen. Who knows, there might be enough people who refuse to comply that one can get away with it; and one’s own reluctance to rise might inspire others to remain seated as well. Eventually, if enough people disobey, the tradition’s purpose will be defeated and it will be a small, albeit symbolic victory over the State.

Symbolism does matter to governments, after all. That is why they invest so many resources in rituals, ceremonies, etc. designed to impress and manipulate the people. Perhaps it is time for us to take control of the symbolism and turn it from the purposes of authoritarian propaganda to a public statement in favor of individual freedom.

———————————-
Examples of court:
Dec., 2010 Ademo goes in Jones Co., MS
July, 2011 Pete & Ademo in Greenfield, MA
Oct., 2011 Pete in Manchester, NH

More:
Never Take a Plea
Don’t Take a Plea Deal
The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

The system is stacked against you. Always. If you are ever arrested, you have lost, regardless of whether you have actually done anything wrong, or anything illegal. There is no “innocent until proven guilty” because by the very act of arrest, you are assumed guilty, and must pay bail in order to then procure a lawyer or other means to fight your way through to proving your innocence. Even if you are found innocent, you have lost, because you have lost time, money, and resources in fighting mistaken, or even intentionally false charges.

Nor is there any “due process” – insofar as the term means fairness. Taken literally, yes, people are given some sort of process, which law enforcement and the powers that be have deemed to be “due” to a defendant. However, this process is one in which prosecutors have absolute civil immunity for knowingly using false evidence. It is one in which police have qualified immunity for mistaken arrests. (More on immunity here).  It is one in which judges too, have judicial immunity no matter how mistaken, illegal, or malicious their rulings are.  I.e. You are jailed for your screwups, but they are immune from suit for their screwups.

Absent any form of recourse for negligent, intentional, or even malicious violations of civil liberties, it is not surprising prosecutors engage in charge-stacking when they have decided they do not like a particular defendant. The wanton piling of charges has nothing to do with justice, guilt, or innocence, and everything to do with coercing a pesky or irritating defendant into submission.

This is what happened to Ademo and Pete in Greenfield Massachusetts in July of  2010. For those who regularly follow Cop Block, the story is well known. They went to the Franklin County Jail to bail out fellow activist Rich Paul, who had been arrested the day before, and filmed this event. Franklin County Sheriffs told them they could film in the lobby. They left and returned later with bail money and Pete’s ID, and were told they could not film after all. When they dared express the radical idea that public officials can be recorded while conducting their duties, Sgt. Todd M. Dodge arrested them.

Long story short, Ademo and Pete were the victims of charge stacking, in which prosecutors filed bogus charge after bogus charge, all of which the jury found them innocent. They repeatedly sought accountability and explanations from Greenfield PD, to no avail. To express displeasure at Ademo and Pete’s repeated efforts to seek accountability, Magnan and his buddies chased Ademo and Pete around town and harassed them for a jaywalking ticket (video here).  In another instance, Greenfield PD followed Liberty on Tour around town for purposes of intimidation.

Despite it being very clear the arrests were unjustified and the charges were nothing more than an unjust display of power, consequences have befallen neither the police nor the prosecutors involved (what a shocker!) Of course, for all the vile trolls on Cop Block insisting against all evidence and logic that police are held to a “higher standard” and are “always held accountable” this must be the first time  in history that prosecutors and police utterly botched the meaning and purpose of the law, and failed to meet due penalties.

In fact, not only has no one been punished, Sgt. Dodge was promoted recently, along with Gary Magnan who is shown in this video issuing arbitrary orders to Ademo and Pete, and threatening them with arrest. However, this should come as no surprise. The police police themselves, and are subject to immunities that ordinary people lack.

This whole affair demonstrates police are neither there to protect nor serve their “customers.” They are there to maintain their authority, even in the absence of a lawful basis for doing so, and when they intentionally misconstrue the law to an innocent victim’s detriment, there is absolutely no recourse.

Beau Davis, whom I’ve spoken with a few times in the past, recently announced that police in Greenfield, Massachusetts have charged him with “wiretapping” for reasons that are currently unknown to him.

Beau has worked with my friends Ademo (aka Adam Mueller) and Pete Eyre on their project Liberty On Tour. Last year, prior to starting Liberty On Tour, Adam and Pete were arrested by the Greenfield police and charged with wiretapping for recording themselves trying to bail a friend out of the Franklin County Jail. They thoroughly documented their arrest, court hearings, and other interactions with the Greenfield police at Cop Block and Liberty On Tour with blog posts, legal documents, and, most importantly, videos, some of which were made with Beau’s assistance.

It seems likely that Beau’s wiretapping charge has something to do with the work he did with Ademo and Pete during their wiretapping ordeal.

Here’s how Beau described the charges on his new blog which he just launched to raise awareness about his case:

A few days ago, my parents in FL received a letter in the mail from the Trial Court of Massachusetts District Court Department, stating that I needed to be present in court in Greenfield, MA, alleging that I unlawfully wiretapped a member of the Greenfield Police Department on May 20, 2011.  The charge is, as it is written in the letter, “WIRETAP, UNLAWFUL c272 §99(C)(1)”, which is a felony in Massachusetts.  The charge was filed on August 11, 2011.  It is August 21, 2011 and I am just now receiving the letter today from my parents.  The date of the arraignment is September 7, 2011.

I still do not know how Greenfield acquired my parents address back home; I can only speculate at this point.

The court has not stated how I have allegedly committed this offense, so I have nothing to go on at the moment, other than speculation.  Now, why Greenfield, MA is trying this again after they failed to convict my friends Pete Eyre and Ademo Freeman for the same “offense”, I do not know.  This could be to save face or to try and further make an example of one who tries to hold public officials accountable for their actions.  I do not understand their motives as I do not yet know who I’ve apparently hurt in the matter.

– Beau Davis, “The Letter That Came In The Mail,” 5 Years For Filming a Cop, August 21, 2011

As I’ve discussed on this blog numerous times before, the Massachusetts wiretapping statute only prohibits the creation of “secret” audio-recordings. Unless a prosecutor can show that Beau “secretly” recorded the police, (by, for instance, hiding a recording device in his pocket), then it’s unlikely that he will be convicted of wiretapping.

But even if Beau did openly record the police, it’s still likely that his charge will go to trial. When Ademo and Pete were arrested for wiretapping, they held their cameras in plain sight and made it clear that they intended to record the police, but that didn’t stop Northwestern Assistant District Attorney Jeffrey Bengston from prosecuting them nor did it stop Judge William F. Mazanec III from refusing to dismiss their bogus charges.

As soon as more information about Beau’s case becomes available, I’ll post an update.

Originally posted at Massachusetts Cop Block

Almost two weeks ago Pete and I (Ademo) were found not guilty of Felony Wiretaping in Greenfield, MA (I was also found not guilty of resisting arrest). After the trial Talley.TV personnel made their way to the parking lot of the courthouse, their goal? To interview as many jurors as possible in order to get a better understanding of what happened after the case was left in their hands.

That’s when Talley.TV and company came across Darcy Merchant (not sure of correct spelling), juror in our trial,  who agreed to be interview for 5 mins in return for $20. Below is that interview, listen to how close the jury was to caging Pete and I.

Pete and I owe Mr. Merchant for his heroic stance during the deliberations, at one point he told the other five juror’s, “I’m not sending these guys to jail, so we can sit here all day.” What Mr. Merchant did here was basically Jury Nullification, he heard the facts, examined the evidence and though he could have been confused on the actual law – thanks to the DA who did his best to cage us – he decided that no matter what he personally wasn’t going to cage us. I’m unsure what exactly made him come to that conclusion maybe he said it best, “Just because you have a badge, doesn’t mean I have to believe what you say.” Exactly and thank you Mr. Merchant.

I’d also like to thank Jason Talley, of the Civil Disobedience Evolution Fund,  and all the other amazing supporters for us (and our combined rights), it’s why I’m proud to call the Shire my home. Will you move here too?

We’re still working on the footage from our trial, hopefully we’ll be able to publish it later today, but we wanted to give folks a sneak peak. Below is a playlist created by Jason Talley, of Talley.tv, consisting of live updates  taken from the trial.

Thanks again to Talley.TV, NeverTakeAPlea.org and FreeKeene.com for teaming up with us to highlight this injustice.

Pete, Ademo and I were on our way home from a ‘know your rights’ presentation we put on to help inform local citizens of how to stand up to oppressive city ‘authority’.  After the program, we were given an immediate opportunity to once again test ourselves against the illogical power trips of the armed local badge-wearing gang.  I was stopped by an Officer Rode and an Officer McCloud as Rode attempted to extort $25 in the form of a citation for skating on the sidewalk.  They were unsuccessful in their attempts.

I can’t speak for Pete, but for me, the outcome of our trial on Monday doesn’t matter – we’ve succeeded at making our point. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to go to jail (who does?) but my conscience is clear. I know without a doubt that Pete and I didn’t harm anyone (though one officer claims he was ‘scratched’ when arresting us – yep, a scratch – lock us up now!) nor did we damage anyone’s property.

To me, we’ve already “won” (for lack of a better word) by making an impact. We’ve personally met 100′s of people here and brought the issues of police accountability to the streets of Greenfield without the local media, city officials or any other major information distributor. Instead, we have – with on the ground activism and outreach – distributed thousands of fliers, DVDs, and business cards, while also showing people how effective a camera is when interacting with police, especially when they’re doing (or have done) wrong.

Folks in the downtown area of Greenfield are consistently stopping Pete, Beau and myself to thank us for highlighting these issues here. Several have gotten, or are talking about getting, cameras of their own, with plans to use them in future police encounters of their own. Others have continued the Robin Hooding that we introduced them to on our last visit to the area.  Even a current Greenfield Police Officer bought one of our shirts and said, “you’re doing valuable work.”

Everything I’ve done the last year inside of Greenfield has been for education. To show others how hypocritical and unjust the ‘justice’ system is. How the system is stacked against you from the moment they put you in it; the police, the district attorney and the judge are all paid by the state. Not only do they work together, but they’re most likely friends (in some way, shape or form), as are most people who work together.  They’re certainly more likely to do favors for one another than for you.

Yet, it’s a whole new game (for them) when the actions are clear as day on video. When the folks harmed (like me and Pete) start asking more questions, take steps to highlight the wrong-doing, and refuse nearly all of their demands or deals. It also doesn’t hurt to have a great group of supporters (people who still believe in personal freedom) that share our stories/videos, send messages to those involved, and even engage in call floods on our behalf. It’s these actions that cause those prosecuting us to worry, which leads me to the video below. A few days ago we posted a video about one tactic we’ve used – making fake fliers (like we did in Mississippi) – and the very next day the chief of police ordered them taken down (he could also have been pissed about the summons to court he got that day, oops). Proving that the camera and public opinion scare the government agent to death, or at least into acting like a total tyrant.

A big thanks to everyone who has spared a few moments to assist us with this task, we’re not alone, and neither are you if you’re the victim of police misconduct. Become a Cop Blocker yourself, say NO to bad laws, say NO to the plea deal and encourage others to do so as well. As someone who’s gone through this all too many times, enough is enough, let’s stop sending money on criminalizing and caging people for victimless crimes.

On Sept 20th 2010 Oliver Rich was driving from Greenfield (MA) to his home in Hatfield (MA), this short drive ended up changing his life. Not only did Oliver suffer permanent damage to his nervous system but he’s also lost/spent thousands of dollars and continues to get the run around.

It all started, as Oliver explains in the video above, when he decided to stop for two hitchhikers (that he recognized from his area). While making room for the traveling musicians Oliver noticed a police car behind them. At first he was told he was stopped for ‘unsafe backing’ but it quickly escalated. The officer claimed Oliver was driving on an expired licenses and when Oliver questioned it, as he was at the DMV earlier that day, the officer (who already called for backup – but unsure why?) pulled his taser. It wasn’t long before 4 or more cops were on scene and Oliver was tased a number of times. Again, it all started because Oliver is a nice guy who wanted to offer some locals a ride and some bully cop didn’t like being questioned.

More to come from Oliver later, as we’ll be following his court proceedings in the upcoming months. There is so much to this case we couldn’t possibly cover it this week, stay tuned.