(UPDATE) Judge Denies Idaho CopBlocker’s Right to Film – AGAIN

Yesterday Theresa Gardunia, the Magistrate Judge in Matthew Townsend case, denied Peter Rimkus’s request to film Matthew’s hearing that’s scheduled to take place today. At first she approved the request but less than 30 mins later denied it citing CopBlock.org is not a media outlet. This prompted me to call the court offices for further comment and lead to the video I published yesterday, see below.

When yesterday’s story was published Pete had already filed another request to film. This time presenting his CopBlock Press Pass and speaking with Pamela Bourne (woman on phone in video above) about the issue directly. Yet, this morning while waiting for Matthew’s case to be called Pete went to inquire with Pamela about the status of his second request to film. That’s when Pete said he was ambushed by six marshall’s that rushed him out of her office. He’s hoping to obtain the footage via FOIA request, since he wasn’t video recording at the time.

Shortly after that he messaged me saying he had got an email from Pamela and that the judge had denied his second request as well. See document below.

Second Denial to Record from Judge

Matt1

Matt2Gardunia makes some outrageous claims and assumptions in her written order denying Pete his right to film. She highlights three main reasonings for denying his request and I’d like to highlight the ridiculousness of each claim.

Point #1:

IAR 45(d) requires the court to exercise particular sensitivity to the victims of crime. The court finds that such an exercise of discretion is warranted based on its position that granting the request for video/photographic coverage does not advance transparency of the proceedings.

Honestly? Gardunia first point is to state that having another camera – outside of those within her control – DOES NOT advance transparency? How can it not? The more cameras there are the more transparency there will be. This is obvious to most people but Gardunia continues her unfounded claims in her second point:

Point #2:

The requester is not a traditional media outlet in that they do not produce news for the purpose of educating and informing the general public, but concentrate on efforts that are activist in nature. Although IA 45 does not specifically exclude non-media entities, the context of the rule is to support an orderly, organized, and cooperative dissemination of court related news to inform and educate the public while preserving the dignity, decorum, and solemnity of the court and while protecting the participants of the proceedings and the court’s personnel

pete (1)Gardunia really goes off the deep end here claiming that CopBlock.org DOES NOT “produce news for the purpose of educating and informing the general public.” I guess in less than 30 minutes of research into CopBlock.org she failed to visit the Resources page. Which is full of great educational information like tips on filming the police, material handouts and ‘know your rights’ information.

In addition, today CopBlock Contributor Georgia Sand posted, “Copwatching and its impart on the policing, law, and justice in the California Law Review” which concludes:

“It is no small feat to serve as the subject of legal research and analysis for scholars in the forefront of the legal community. In other words, Cop Blockers and other copwatchers everywhere are revolutionizing justice, policing, and law.”

Seems to me that the content created here at CopBlock.org has not only educated and informed the general public but lawyers, judges (as was the case recently when Judge Joseph spent the evening watching my CopBlock videos after holding me in contempt of court, see here) and others; who are, NOT, the general public. It seems to me that Gardunia is injecting her personal view of what she perceives CopBlock.org to be, which is further highlighted in her last point.

Point #3:

Upon denial of CopBlock’s initial request, the court staff received the following response:

Who The fuck are you to tell someone they are not part of the media COPblock is indeed a media resource for thousands dare u say millions of people how dare you try to deny them the right to be at the trial you just stepped in it big time bitch you bette4r get your shit straight we surround you!

Review of copblock.org confirms that one technique of the organization is the public intimidation of those who disagree with their position and they seem to ecourage the private harassment of those they feel are at odds with them.

Talk about the hypocrisy, but before I do, note how Gardunia says “denial of CopBlock’s initial request?” CopBlock didn’t make the request, Peter Rimkus did, and she denied HIM the right to film, not CopBlock.org – a website – or CopBlock – the idea that, “Badges Don’t Grant Extra Rights.” As much the ‘judge’ would like you to believe this is about “CopBlock” or others who messaged, or voice their concerns, it is NOT about that. Though even if it was about CopBlock her claims are still unfounded and are weak legally. This is about her denying Peter Rimkus the right to film and in three points denying such request, never does she give a legal reason why Peter can’t film.

banner- store2

I’m not sure why she’s made this an issue of what CopBlock does or doesn’t do, but she’s making assumptions and trying to legally back her subjective thoughts about CopBlock into her ruling. She believes “CopBlock” would use this video to harass others, but doesn’t state that Peter is one of them, or that’s her concern with Peter’s request. This is further proven, in my opinion, when she states that “CopBlock’s” (I guess people who believe “Badges Don’t Grant Extra Rights”) technique is to intimidate those who disagree with them and to encourage harassment. Really? Did a Judge who orders people to be taken to jail, signs warrants to ‘allow’ people with guns to enter another person’s home and uses her position as a judge to limit the objective recording of events that transpire in “the people’s” courtroom just accused CopBlockers (or a website) of intimidation and harassment? Now, that’s a funny joke. I don’t recall any CopBlockers who’ve partaken in such actions, or have friends, like that of the judge.

That being said, Gardunia needs to take an honest look around her work environment, the whole place is not only based off intimidation and harassment but it’s entirely BUILT on it. Every single interaction she has with someone in court every day is based of some form of intimidation or harassment and to claim that CopBlockers are guilty of this is simply ridiculous. I don’t know of one CopBlocker who has partaken in the activities that Gardunia does on a daily biases but that’s either here or there, all that matters is that Pete should be allowed to film the public hearing without prejudice against his beliefs, associations or the actions of others. Which is what’s happening to him today.

Sure many of the contributors here, and CopBlockers abroad, use the tactic known as a “call flood.” Which is designed to peacefully persuade public officials to do the right thing, commonly when caging someone for a victimless crime – as was the case with my most recent detainment in Zaneville Ohio. Of course it’s best to advocate your feelings or position in a respectful manner, unlike the person Gardunia pointed out in her denial order, but that person wasn’t Pete. Instead of attacking a network of individuals who strive to share police accountability information and tactics, focus on the issue at hand Gardunia. The issue is that of filming, are you going to allow Pete to film? Or are you going to violate his rights?

If you don’t support this decision to ban cameras than consider calling the courthouse and voicing your concerns about secrete courtroom proceedings. Let’s also remind the judge that Matthew Townsend had requested that Peter film his hearing for him. Call Ada County courthouse : 208-287-7080 & Ada County clerk : 208-287-6900

11119074_869271956466129_1501657492_n

 

EPN

Pre-1919 Unique, Historic Dominion Police Badge Collection (rare Rare Rare)  picture
Pre-1919 Unique, Historic Dominion Police Badge Collection (rare Rare Rare)
$443244.45


2 Qspcc Obsolete Queens New York City Child Services 40 & 50 Year Officer Badges picture
2 Qspcc Obsolete Queens New York City Child Services 40 & 50 Year Officer Badges
$7000.0


Police D.a.r.e. Badge Pin San Fernando Ca Vintage Rare Mini First Issue 80s Dare picture
Police D.a.r.e. Badge Pin San Fernando Ca Vintage Rare Mini First Issue 80s Dare
$6000.99


Vintage United States Deputy Marshal Badge Us Police picture
Vintage United States Deputy Marshal Badge Us Police
$3750.0


Vintage U.s. Inspector Of Customs Badge Police picture
Vintage U.s. Inspector Of Customs Badge Police
$3250.0


Ademo Freeman

was born and raised in Wisconsin, traveled the country in a RV dubbed “MARV” and is an advocate of a voluntary society, where force is replaced with voluntary interactions. He’s partaken in projects such as, Motorhome Diaries, Liberty on Tour, Free Keene, Free Talk Live and is the Founder of CopBlock.org.
____________________________________________________________________________

If you enjoy my work at CopBlock.org, please, consider donating $1/month to the CopBlock Network or purchasing CopBlock.org Gear from the store.
____________________________________________________________________________

Find Ademo at these social networks:
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube

  • tz1

    “Point #1:IAR 45(d) requires the court to exercise particular sensitivity to the victims of crime.”

    What victims?

  • Sikko

    “Gardunia really goes off the deep end here claiming that CopBlock.org DOES NOT “produce news for the purpose of educating and informing the general public.” I guess in less than 30 minutes of research into CopBlock.org she failed to visit the Resources page. Which is full of great educational information like tips on filming the police, material handouts and ‘know your rights’ information.”

    What is more likely is the judge did a few minutes research and stumbled on this wonderful piece of damning evidence against your claims to be a journalist:

    http://www.copblock.org/118778/copblock-org-is-propaganda-do-not-read-this/

    Sucks when your own words do you in, doesn’t it?

  • Common Sense

    crowd quiets, begin slow clap…..

  • t

    Wow

    You guys are kinda rapey…no means no.

    She’s not denying you any kind of access. Go watch.

    But can you guys blame her for telling you no?
    Look at the edited videos….look at any articles posted here that are negative towards CB…..
    The heavy editing
    The fear of the truth
    The out of context quotes

    That is CB.

  • keepitreal

    And that’s different from how some of the more “recognized” media outlets slant stories to meet their own politics how? And they aren’t even as up front about what they’re doing.

  • Sikko

    There is a world of difference between being biased in reporting and producing propaganda. Take a very recent example of propaganda from a more recognized media source, Rolling Stone, the UVA gang rape story. The story was too good, too juicy to do even minimal fact checking, because it fit the writer’s agenda, and when the story went up against the facts, it was made clear that the truth was irrelevant, that the agenda was more important. CopBlock operates just like that Rolling Stone writer, the narrative is more important than the facts.

  • JC

    It’s the judges discretion to let you video a proceeding or not. If a judge actually looked at your website and videos, that would make anyone deny you to film in the courtroom. I’m sure Pete started throwing one of his hissy fits and pointing fingers and he was ushered out of the office. You did it too yourselves

  • Pw4x3r

    Except in most cases CopBlock has video evidence that let’s the reader’s choose for themselves, regardless of whatever narrative is attached. But nice try…

  • Pw4x3r

    I like how the judge says this request is from an organization. I also like how they say the video will likely be used to harass others. No organization. Way to get yourself called out on being a fucking idiot, as well as showing this is a personal attack. Interesting also, that video of a public court room can now be used as harassment? This judge needs to take a fucking hike.

  • RAD

    “…they do not produce news for the purpose of educating and informing the general public…”

    is code word for “they produce news for the purpose of educating and informing the general public about stuff that doesn’t fit the government’s public relations narrative and I personally don’t like it.”

  • RAD

    Fear of truth? Lol, that’s rich.

  • Shawn

    “There is a world of difference between being biased in reporting and producing propaganda.”

    Real propaganda isn’t open about their views. Real propaganda is subtle. CB does not pretend it doesn’t have a directed purpose of outing LE for their behavior.

  • RAD

    The judge’s victims. She is very sensitive to their needs as she fleeces them for her next luxury purchase.

  • RAD

    “t • 5 hours ago
    …no means no.”

    So go and get a real job where your customers actually choose to pay you because they want to, and stop forcing your so-called “services” onto your victims.

  • keepitreal

    “that would make anyone deny you to film in the courtroom”. LOL. You’ve got the literary skills of one of those goats you hump, slaps. To, too, what’s the difference, right.

  • keepitreal

    Biased reporting to have you think a certain way about a story isn’t propaganda? I’d have to differ on that one.

  • WD!

    Lame

  • t

    Homemade Shiney Press Passes Don’t Grant Extra Rights.

  • Sikko

    No, the most effective propaganda isn’t open about its views. Advertising is propaganda, we know that it is propaganda, and this is why ad execs continue to look for knew ways to be effective in advertising.

  • Sikko

    Ah yes, because those videos are never edited, and video can’t be used as propaganda.

  • John Smith

    “Call floods are designed to peacefully persuade?”

    Who The fuck are you to tell someone they are not part of the media COPblock is indeed a media resource for thousands dare u say millions of people how dare you try to deny them the right to be at the trial you just stepped in it big time bitch you bette4r get your shit straight we surround you!

    If this is your definition of “peaceful” you need a new dictionary, bitch.

  • Rusty

    What we see here is a Judge (all of them really) who do not want to be “held accountable”. For what they say and how they run “their” Court which among other things would automatically mean a new hearing. They do not ever actually follow the laws as written ….

  • jonn

    What is the Judge afraid of?
    For years, at cop stops for some minor infraction, cop wanting to search your car would say something like “if you don’t have anything to hide you’ll not have a problem of me searching your car”.
    Well, times and technology have changed. We the People now have the means to record and document our elected officials, Judges, and law enforcement with the protections of the Constitution. We should be asking the Judge “if you’re not doing anything wrong on the bench you shouldn’t have any problems being recorded”.