District Attorney Continues Vendetta Against Ademo

UPDATE: I went to court on the 29th of April and was arraigned on wiretapping again. The trial was set for July 14th and I was told not to do things that were already illegal for me to do anyways. Pending the outcome of upcoming motions the next update will most likely be around July.
In the video above I outline, and update the viewers on, the current status of my case relating to wiretapping charges out of Manchester, NH. By watching the video and/or reading the back story here, you can get up to speed with how this story has progressed. In short, I was put on trial, convicted, caged, released (time served) and later won an appeal – thanks to Brandon Ross – in my first go around with Michael Valentine and other “Hillsborough County Employees.”

When the New Hampshire Supreme court overturned  the Superior Courts conviction, they did so citing “plain error.” Meaning the District Attorney’s office – or Michael Valentine – have the option to push the case to trial… again. As I stated in the video, I’m not sure why Michael – or any DA – would want to try this case again but that seems to be the case.

The idea of going back to a cage bothers me and knowing that logic, justice and reason are lost in a courtroom, I know that jail is exactly where I’d end up if I went about this my way again. Sure, I could show people – once again – that speaking the truth and seeking logical justice can be done in a courtroom, but I’m tired of that, and it ends with me losing my (already limited) freedoms. Not to mention, I’ve already been to jail for these insane charges. The idea of going back to jail for the same ‘crime/charges’ literally makes me sick to my stomach.

Which is why I’m pleased to state that Brandon Ross has agreed to represent me Pro-Bono on the state charges. Brandon was the sole person responsible for the victory at the Supreme Court level and has invested a lot of time and energy on my case. He’s done so without asking for anything and I’m grateful for his dedication to my case.

Brandon has already filed a motion to dismiss my case and is gearing up for whatever the state can throw his way. In fact, we have a hearing on April 29th at 1:00 pm in Manchester, NH to argue the motions filed. I’m hoping this case can end quickly and suggest the following to those looking to help me achieve that.

  • Share this story with your friends, via FB, twitter and whatever else you can.
  • Consider making a donation to Brandon: He hasn’t asked for any compensation (not even gas money) and has done a great job. I’m going to donate and you can too via PP (brandon[at]bdross.com) or with Bitcoins ( 12ycWabnfNcRqcsoEBnL1t9nhgKy2dwn2i ). Donations are private and will be used in whatever matters Brandon decides.
  • Join me in court: I have upcoming court dates on April 29th (1:00 pm), June 24th (TBA) and July 14th (TBA). As mentioned in the video, this is Brandon’s activism/case, and I ask that folks respect his wishes in the courtroom. Unless they try to cage me, then I hope you respect mine and stop them.

Other than that, if you feel so inclined, you may call Michael Valentine and ask that he stops harassing me. Yet, I don’t believe he will.

EPN

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

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    First again!

  • Common Sense

    You wanted police attention, you got police attention.

  • t

    I guess you should have stuck to the stupid “chalking”.

  • Glenn Horowitz

    This is an obscenity, and I detailed it fully on my Facebook page (also visible on Ademo’s page). This is a technical runaround of the prohibition against double jeopardy, and the officials are thumbing their noses smugly at the spirit, if not the letter of, the law. It is pure Neolithic vindictiveness for Ademo spreading the word about a violent public employee, all the attempts to pretty it up with obfuscation notwithstanding. As I said, it’s lawyerball at its most egregious.

  • ThirtyOneBravo
  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Defendants often win cases or have cases dismissed based on supposed technicalities. Why can’t the prosecution have the same opportunity?

  • John Q Public

    Should’ve used a lawyer in the first place Mueller. I guess it was easier begging for FRNs and then defending yourself without any legal expertise thinking you’d get that jury nullification crap to work. Hope you don’t try and pull that stunt again. I guess the “don’t take a plea” mantra doesn’t work for you or any other copblocker. Have fun in court.

  • Ian Battles

    How many tax dollars has Micheal Valentine used in his crusade against you for daring to video record a public employee?

  • RAD

    “Published On April 22, 2014 | By Ademo Freeman | Videos

    As I stated in the video, I’m not sure why Michael – or any DA – would want to try this case again but that seems to be the case.”

    If he re tries the case and wins you can’t sue. He’s not trying to send you back to jail. He’s trying to block you from doing another free speech lawsuit. You realize that with the conviction overturned you can file a lawsuit right and that you can take it straight to federal court and that way you wouldn’t have to challenge the constitutionality in the state court (you could do it at the federal level)? This is a major free speech issue.

  • RAD

    What is the benefit is the real question? Should he be able to waste as much tax money as he wants trying cases for which the sentences have already been served? Who benefits from this and how? People had to work earning that money that bureaucrats then just took, what do they get out of this? Probably another five grand of taxpayer dollars minimum, what do they have to show for it?

  • t

    No. He would have to prove that there was prosecutorial misconduct of some kind. And there is no evidence of that at all.

    Do you think that you can sue if I arrest you and charge you with whatever that’s based on the evidence at the time which gave the PC to arrest you you…but you are found ‘not guilty’ in court?

  • Mike TheVet

    I guess you continue to get paid for trolling this website.

    You’re on the wrong side of the Blue Line, T. Some free advice: stop posting here.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Here’s the thing: Ademo didn’t serve out his sentence. He also has a five year commitment looming over his head. So, since his case is still open, and since there was a technical error on the judges part, the case can be retried.

  • RAD

    Interesting, but can you articulate how any member of society will receive any tangible benefit whatsoever from this? Like by stating a specific person who benefits and stating what the specific benefit is?
    And should we allow our so called “representatives” use the tax money they take without any benefit to show for it? If someone takes your money and not only has no benefit to show for his use of that money, not for you specifically or for anyone at all, how can that person be said to be acting in a legitimate representative capacity representing your interests?

    Not just ademo going to jail, but many people can be shown to have been injured by this, specific articulable injuries suffered by actual real people. Taxpayers who have had there money taken to fund the thing. Jurors who have had their time wasted, loss of income from time off work. Friends and family of the victims suffer by proxy. Then there is the chilling effect this has on free speech. So who benefits, if anyone does in fact?

  • RAD

    I’m not talking about a prosecutorial misconduct lawsuit. I’m talking about a free speech case a la Glick v Cuniffe. The conduct Ademo was charged for was for recording a public employee in the course of their duties. The prosecution admitted in court that there was no victim. That’s because there was no expectation of privacy. The whole reason for this prosecution is to chill free speech. It’s not about a violation of privacy. To answer your question, yes if the statute itself is unconstitutional or if the statute is being used to stop someone from exercising a “constitutionally protected” right.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    While I’m not a resident of the area, I can say that I will benefit from the proper prosecution and sentencing of cases. I’m part of “We The People”. As part of that clan, I’m obliged to follow the law and fulfill other obligations such as voting, sitting on a jury and paying my taxes. And, as part of that clan, I get to benefit from the process of establishing presidence.

    I think this answers your questions.

  • Bo
  • t

    Still waiting on a check.

    But tell me smart guy….what am I “wrong” about here?
    Ademo knew….and intentionally did what he knew was illegal. This case isn’t about if it should be illegal. It’s based on facts and evidence. There isn’t even any doubts about it.

    Now…if I were this DA would I try him again? I don’t know. Maybe. And the reason for that would be multiple. These idiots are a public nuisance. Not just a simple irritant…but a problem that saps lots of public funds to deal with their nonsense. Sending a message may be worth it to the DA so that maybe these goofs will learn that the best way not to get into trouble…is to not act like an idiot.

    But I’m open….convince me that I’m wrong. Show me the error that I made. Explain to me why Ademo should be allowed to knowingly break the law.

  • t

    Really? The jury apparently saw it differently now didn’t they? They ‘nullified’ old Ademo now didn’t they?

    This had NOTHING to do with “free speech”.

  • t

    I agree with you. I think every resident there benefits by knowing that what they think is a private phone conversation…will remain that……a private phone conversation. Remember, this wasn’t a conversation being held out in the open public where, even if Ademo had been secretly recording without the other parties knowledge, anyone could have walked up and listened or have overheard at any point.
    I live in a “one party state” where this would have been legal. I hate that. I think that’s wrong when it comes to phone conversations or any conversation that takes place in “private”. In places out where anyone can over hear…that’s good.

    But let me ask you RAD…..why do YOU oh protector of the freedoms and champion of transparency…..why don’t you think that it’s so cool to be sneaky instead of being up front about things?

  • Mike TheVet

    You come here to intentionally disrupt conversation between people who believe legislators are out of control. People come here to see what they already know: that SOME police officers (not all and not even most) lie, cheat, and steal behind the badge. Do you disagree with that fact? Yes, there are criminals in practically every profession and Police Departments are no different. HOWEVER, most other professions do not deal with someone’s right to live. THat’s why PO’s/LEO’s have such an important role in our society, “t.” And that’s why everyone in this Country should have a ZERO TOLERANCE TO OATH BREAKERS.

    I took the same Oath as those Police Officers did and, in my honest and humble opinion, some of those officers should be thrown in jail for the crap they pull on innocents civilians simply FILMING THEM.

    C’mon, T. Let’s have an honest discussion about that because let’s face it, Ademo doesn’t do anything that seriously hurts anyone.

    You say that Ademo is wasting “tax dollars,” and, to a certain degree, I agree. However, isn’t it more beneficial to tax payers if the police would use Prior Restraint and simply not waste their time prosecuting a guy that usually: 1)Only Films officers 2)Only asks Officers questions on film 3) Doesn’t ever damage anyone’s property, 4)doesn’t ever harm anyone phsyically ?

    Basically, aren’t the officers wasting the tax payers dollars by initiating contact and engaging with Ademo?

    Just my 2 Yellen’s…

  • Mike TheVet

    I want to know as well, Ademo. I want to see exactly how much tax payers are giving Valentine.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    “…let’s face it, Ademo doesn’t do anything that seriously hurts anyone.”

    Are you kidding me? He broke a law that helps guarantee my privacy. Your privacy. The privacy of your neighbor and the privacy of everyone. This isn’t a victimless crime here. This isn’t about some minor law like jaywalking. He willingly broke a law designed to give people an expectation of privacy.

    How can you say that he didn’t seriously hurt anyone? Yet you complain about minor HIPAA law violations on your Facebook page. You know what HIPAA laws are for, right? It protects our privacy.

    Double standard much?

  • John Q Public

    Mike, since you were in the military, you understand that the UCMJ has all kinds of statutes that could be considered “victimless.” But, you still have to abide by the entire UCMJ, not just what you personally think is just or unjust. Same goes with laws and statutes in the civilian world. You might want to get to know Mueller a little bit better. Go back and read some of his early stories. He initiated the contact that got into trouble in the first place. And it wasn’t filming the cops either. He illegally recorded a phone conversation. Then he went on to try and grandstand in the courtroom. He begged people for money to hire a lawyer and then kept it and defended himself. He thought he would try for jury nullification as opposed to guilt or innocence in a crime and it backfired on him. He knowingly crossed the line and it bit him in the ass. He got the case thrown out on a technicality and the state has the right to retry him. Now he’s scared because his actions might just bite him in the ass again.

  • RAD

    That is purely speculative. The injury done by this prosecution is palpable and distinct, not just speculative or abstract, while the benefits you claim are speculative and abstract. You aren’t actually able to show that this prosecution brought any specific value to any specific person. Further we can speculate as to the chilling effect such actions will have on free speech.

  • RAD

    “t ThirtyOneBravo • 9 hours ago
    this wasn’t a conversation being held out in the open public where, even if Ademo had been secretly recording without the other parties knowledge, anyone could have walked up and listened or have overheard at any point. ”

    She was sitting in an office that’s open to the public. Indeed anyone could just walk into the office at any point.

    I don’t know if it was sneaky. They analyzed it in the court trial and Ademo brought up that he notified that he was from the media and that he put them on notice that he was contacting them as media looking for a comment on the record. He did not specifically say he was audio recording but there’s really no expectation of privacy for cops on duty in a public place as per Glick v Cuniffe, why would we assume cops had any less a right to privacy as any other “government official”? Is there something unique about cops that they have no expectation to privacy while other government employees do? Also, I don’t know how much of the court papers you’ve read, but the reason the appeal was granted was because there was no evidence he was “being sneaky” and thus that element was unproven. I could see why he would have an incentive to be “sneaky” in that it would possibly get a more candid and honest response, but I don’t think he necessarily had that intent, and his announcing himself as “media” seeking “comment” does kind of imply that it wasn’t his intent.

  • RAD

    “t Mike TheVet • 19 hours ago

    But tell me smart guy….what am I “wrong” about here?
    Ademo knew….and intentionally did what he knew was illegal. ”

    Why would you assume Ademo knew it was illegal? If you’ve read cop block, you know that Ademo isn’t one to unquestionably accept any arbitrary claim of authority. Is there any evidence to prove that this wiretap statute applies to him or anyone else? Why would you presume another to accept a proposition with no supporting evidence?

    “This case isn’t about if it should be illegal. It’s based on facts and evidence. There isn’t even any doubts about it.”

    It was thrown out due to lack of evidence proving the element of intent.

  • RAD

    “But I’m open….convince me that I’m wrong. Show me the error that I made. Explain to me why Ademo should be allowed to knowingly break the law.”

    The question presumes the law applies to Ademo in the first place. Is there any evidence it does?

  • RAD

    The prosecution failed its evidenciary burden, as it shall again.
    He still hasn’t been convicted legally, and he’s to be presumed innocent til proven guilty.

  • Mike TheVet

    “Are you kidding me? He broke a law that helps guarantee my privacy.”

    That’s funny, because I thought Edward Snowden just showed us how our privacy/4th amendment is being DESTROYED by the NSA. Let me guess, ThirtyOne, you think I’m comparing “apples and oranges,” right?

    Are you really concerned about Ademo recording you, ThirdOneBravo? And let’s say he does record you talking to your girl in public….or guy, if that’s your thing (I have nothing against anyone being gay), why would you be discussing anything that is truly private out in public?

    Know what I mean? It just seems like you have it out for Ademo for no other reason other than he’s exposing A FEW PO’s/LEO’s dirty laundry. Notice the word “few.”

    Again, I believe most PO’s/LEO’s have good hearts. But more and more bad apples seem to be popping up all over the Nation. And what a coincidence: it started right around the time these departments started taking Federal Grants.

    Just trying to not break my Oath, ThirtyOne. And what Ademo does, in this regard, is tell another side of the story. The Police have been caught thousands upon thousands of times falsifying their own reports. Why? I have no idea, but video cameras seem to be “enemy #1” to, again, SOME of these officers, and I’ll never understand any officer questioning transparency.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    There’s no speculation at all. If this case isn’t prosecuted correctly, I directly am effected by the outcome. My privacy is at risk by presidence alone. This isn’t about free speech. It’s about violating MY rights as a citizen.

  • Mike TheVet

    “The UCMJ has all kinds of statutes that could be considered ‘victimless.’ But, you still have to abide by the entire UCMJ, not just what you personally think is just or unjust.”

    I agree with that, 100%. When you serve in-garrison and OCONUS, just as an example, you must not act a fool or the populace will think you’re entire Unit acts as such.

    However, that’s comparing Apples and Oranges because Ademo did not agree to give up any rights that the Constitution has already guaranteed him. We, as soldiers/marines/airmen/seamen, voluntarily give up our Rights provided by the Constitution to serve “a higher purpose,” whatever or whoever that purpose might be for (I.E. God, their Country, etc etc).

    As far as Ademo raising money and keeping it to himself, have a source or anything for that? I’m not saying you’re making it up, but I would like to read it for myself.

    I just think this is a huge waste of tax payer money trying to prosecute someone who hasn’t physically harmed anyone or anyone’s property. There are no physical “damages,” nor was anyone’s personal lives affected in a negative light.

    I have to ask you something, though, John: in regards to all of this, do you believe Snowden is a “whistle-blower” or a “traitor” considering he “broke the law to show how the NSA was breaking the law”?

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    “Let me guess, ThirtyOne, you think I’m comparing “apples and oranges,” right?”

    No. You’re not comparing apples and oranges. You’re comparing apples and skateboards. They’re not even related.

    These two jokers secretly recorded a TELEPHONE conversation.

  • RAD

    Really? It’s not pure speculation? You would have been directly effected? So who specifically would have called you and recorded you if Ademo hadn’t been prosecuted, and how do you know the individual chose not to record you because of this (non)”case”? What specific imminent invasion of privacy did this protect you from? I think this scenario you propose that you are directly effected because without it you would have been recorded or more likely to have been recorded is purely conjectural unless you can specifically state who would have recorded you and how you know this prosecution stopped it from happening.

  • Mike TheVet

    Okay, and in recording that phone conversation, REGARDLESS if it’s against the law or not, who did they:

    1. Physically Harm in recording the conversation
    2. Mentally Harm in recording the conversation

    That’s all I’m getting at. Who’s LIFE IS NEGATIVELY AFFECTED by Ademo’s recording?

    In addition, what are your reasons (or the prosecutions reasons) for using A LOT of tax-payer money for lawyer/court/filling fees?

    Is this a necessary battle that the United States should invest in considering everything else going on in the Country?

    My opinion, respectfully, is no, considering:

    1. The current amount of National Debt occured.
    2. Unemployment numbers, skewed or not
    3. Number of cases of more serious crimes such as:

    Robert Richards the IV, molesting his young daughter, and only receiving 10 years PROBATION.

  • RAD

    There is no corpus delecti to Ademo’s alleged(but yet unproven in court) actions in that there is no palpable and distinct injury caused by Ademo’s alleged actions even if, for the sake of argument we presume the factual allegations to be acurate. The only injuries associated with this whole debacle are those directly caused by the state-actors’ actions.

  • Mike TheVet

    Exactly. No injuries sustained. That’s all I was trying to get at, but I guess disagreeing with some on this board Constitutes “crazy talk” or “anti-American.”

  • Mike TheVet

    John Q, I’m trying to find more information regarding your claim that Ademo took his lawyer fees and used them for his own personal use.

    Could you provide a link/source of some kind? Having a hard time finding anything on that.

  • RAD

    There were injuries sustained which were caused by the claimed “authorities”, but Ademo didn’t hurt anyone. The typical pattern you see with police prosecutions where the police are the victimizers and the accused is the victim.

  • RAD

    He took donations that he used to pay for the trial transcripts which he was forced to have to pay for to get his wrongful conviction overturned. One of many palpable injuries suffered because of the government’s actions in this matter.

  • John Q Public
  • RAD

    Military regulations aren’t victimless, they directly lead to killing and destruction. You think Obama would have killed so many children if it weren’t for the unquestioned obedience of those prepared to obey his violent agenda?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O53Zz8lj6NQ

  • John Q Public

    Adam and Pete never miss an opportunity to beg for money.
    “Donate to Ademo’s Jail Pledge (see widget below) – This will not only help fund CopBlock.org ventures but will also help me get paper, pencils, snacks and (if able) a couple bucks in my pocket when I get out. (Donated funds will be broken down accordingly, less than 500 FRN’s = 50% to CopBlock and 50% to Ademo. Over 500 FRN’s and CopBlock will get 75% and Ademo 25%. Pete will use the money for CopBlock as he sees fit, working with the other contributors, so stay tuned to hear from him on the raised funds.”

    http://www.copblock.org/17819/pledge/

  • John Q Public

    Here’s the best one which shows Mueller begging for money for a lawyer.
    http://www.copblock.org/12425/wiretapping2/

  • Mike TheVet

    So are you saying Ademo committed Fraud by using his raised monies to fund the CopBlock website? I would love to read about that. Just point me to a source document or website or receipt and I’m all ears, John. Again, Not saying you’re “wrong” or “making stuff up.”

  • RAD

    Which is relevant how? I think what Mike is getting at is you make i seem like he misappropriated money allocated as lawyer funds deceitfully. But then you quote him saying something that in no way supports that.

  • Mike TheVet

    That’s what I’m trying to honestly clear up, Rad.

  • Mike TheVet

    Careful Rad, there are many, many, many excellent Serviceman out there that will not follow illegal orders.

    As a matter of fact, we take an Oath to disregard illegal orders. And trust me, it’s happened plenty of times.

  • Mike TheVet

    I appreciate the substance and will read what you just gave me extensively.

    Any time 2 people that disagree with each other avoid insults and engage in debate, I salute.

    I just wish it happened more in parts of the internet such as CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc etc.

  • Mike TheVet

    What happened to you yesterday, “T”?

    Or do you have multiple names in Disqus and you give yourself “up-votes” and reply to people who respond to your other names?

    C’mon, be honest now….

  • John Q Public

    I can tell you’ve never served.

  • John Q Public

    Mueller begged for money for a lawyer, than defended himself without using a lawyer at all. Then he begged for money to put on his jail account after he was convicted, after splitting it with his buddy Pete of course. Its all on this site. Just look at the links I’ve posted.

  • RAD

    In the army? I would never join the army, no one should. Thats not a refutation of what I’ve said about it though. Whatever I say is right or wrong these irrelevant strawmans are beside the point, if my facts are wrong and Obama didn’t kill 200 children, then maybe you will correct me? But the facts do not change because of whether the person stating them is affiliated w/ the military.

  • RAD

    within 29 seconds into the video:
    “Should I go with a lawyer?…
    …To be honest I’m still not sure what to do?”
    And you make it like he is representing that he is using all the donations for a lawyer. He was having a crises situation, and people VOLUNTARILY contributed money to HELP someone and to help a cause. Contrast that with the prosecution who uses money violently taken from the community and who has no accountability for providing anything of value for that money to those from whom it was taken.

  • RAD

    The verdict-in-error was nullified, you get that right? He has still not been legally convicted… Yes I do not doubt that you could get 12 people to go along with any sort of nonsense.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4BEY1lZDyg

  • t

    Dude….
    She was sitting in her office that was open to the public. Did you really even think that? Ever heard of a door?

    This has no relation to Glik. Glik isn’t a “bright line” decision either. It’s not what you guys think it is or want it to be.
    This was a recording made of someone who clearly thought that they were engaged in a private conversation. And it’s a ‘two party” state. It’s really as simple as that.

    The decision in this case followed not only the letter of the law…but clearly the spirit of the law. The jury clearly saw that. Saw it for what it was. The DA, by retrying this is trying to clarify for all…moving forward…how the law should be applied. As you CBers like to say….the jury could have nullified this…but they chose to back the law instead of those hat want to be above it. They chose to nullify Ademo and rightly so.

  • t

    You couldn’t be any more right. Ademo never accepts anything as illegal. He prefers to act as though he is above anything and everyone. He is the line leader in the “only my rights matter” club. But the part you are very wrong about is his knowing about it. He’s a legal,genius. He pointed out time after time what and where the police were doing things wrong and acting illegally. Tuff to buy it then that he didn’t know about it. The dog don’t hunt guy. Can’t be an expert and an ignoramus about the same subject right?

  • John Q Public

    “As stated in the video, I think a lawyer would be beneficial to ensure I have fair pre-trial hearings and ‘proper’ (in their eyes) procedure during trial.”

  • RAD

    Ya, he’s trying to weigh the pros and cons of having a lawyer and asking for donations in the same video, but he’s not specifically saying the donations are for a lawyer. Right at the beginning of the video he says he doesn’t even know if he’s even getting a lawyer. If people want to donate money to Ademo it’s up to them. Even if he took the donations and piled all the cash on a barbeque and lit it on fire what is it to you? They were voluntary contributions. If you sent money under the understanding it was for a lawyer and it didn’t go to that then ask Ademo for a refund. Simple. But you seem to be trying to deliberately misconstrue what he has said to make this vague allegation of fraud that seems to have no substance. You don’t have any first hand knowledge of fraud and you were’nt negatively effected by the donation drive, right?

  • RAD

    If you research this thing that lawyers call “the law” enough you realize it is based on superstition and fallacious illogic. The pharoah claimed he his authority came from his claim that he was a “god”. Likewise the modern concept of law as lawyers and bureaucrats conceptualize it in the modern democratic republican authoritarian realm of thought is similarly based on mysticism and superstition. The modern conceptualization of legal theory in the democratic republican authoritarian model is full of logical contradictions.
    Some of the existential positions of the modern democratic republican authoritarian governments, like the “USA”:
    “I have the right to violently control you against your will because you consented.” which is self contradictory.
    “We protect everyone by threatening everyone.” Again, a self-contradictory proposition.
    “We protect your life liberty and property by taking your property and threatening your life and liberty”, etc…
    When you really look into it these legal concepts lawyers have they are largely just legal opinions stacked on top of other legal opinions with no factual basis. Is there any evidence proving that the constitution or any statutes actually apply to Ademo, or me or you or anyone else? You seem to believe it does apply but what is the proof, if any? A lawyer said so ?
    If “some guy said so” is all that is needed to prove a proposition to be true, then why do we have trials, not just judicial trials but clinical trials or any such evidence-gathering process?
    “The evidence these pills work and they’re safe is some guy said so”. Why should we accept that as proof?
    Should you assume anyone should just presume a proposition without any evidence? So what is the evidence proving that any of the laws you enforce apply to anyone (if there is any)? And how can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ademo violated a law with no evidence the law applies to him in the first place?

  • RAD

    @t:
    So why would you presume Ademo “knew” it would be illegal?
    Doesn’t him knowing it to be illegal presume the statute applied to him and he knew the statute and knew it applied to him? Even if, for the sake of argument, he was familiar with the statute itself, the words on paper, what facts are there showing that the statute(just words on paper) applies to him or anyone else? I get that a common PRESUMPTION is that the statutes apply to everyone in the geographic area of new hampshire, however is there any evidence proving such a proposition?

  • Common Sense

    I’d like to know how much of your income, if you have any, you pay in taxes. Please explain what you pay in state, local and federal taxes…

  • John Q Public

    I never said fraud, thank you very much.

  • t

    Guy….I know not of what you speak. I know nothing “up votes”….nothing of were one finds out about such things nor what they mean nor how you even give someone a “vote”, up or down.
    I post here only as me. I use no other names. Heck, the regulars here that don’t even agree or like me regularly point out when my imposter shows up as my style is MY style.

    So, I know not of which you speak.

  • t

    Yeah. But YOU realize that had nothing to do with the juries verdict and decision right?

  • t

    RAD? Are you there RAD? Can’t get past the old office door can you?

  • Common Sense

    …And excellent excerpt from an attorney to their client.

    “….You are not a lawyer.You do not know how statements will affect you and your rights.Most of your allegations are completely unfounded and have destroyed any potential legal arguments that you could have made in your defense.Aside from the work that you cause me to do in an effort to undo all of the mistakes that you are making, you are potentially destroying all of your rights and legal defenses with each piece of information that you post.If you immediately remove these bytes and this article, then I will consider continuing my representation of you.Otherwise, I am terminating my representation of you.I have been patient, professional, and sympathetic,but I will not represent you under the current conditions.Further, I can guarantee that if you so much as attempt to slander or otherwise harm my reputation in any manner, then I will sue you for any untrue or misleading statement that you make about me.That is not a threat, but rather it is a reminder of the law.”

  • PaulSevere

    Plus the reward given to the perpetrator, and the protection given to future perpetrators, which is what this is really all about. But for any citizen, student, or taxpayer, only HARM comes from this.

  • PaulSevere

    Benefit from the suppression of the First Amendment? Go back to King George, redcoat.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Yes. It’s necessary. This isn’t a victimless crime. I am a victim in this case. This has an effect on privacy laws.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Rad has no clue what corpus delecti is. None at all. It means “Body of crime” meaning, proof that a crime was committed. The corpus delecti is that 1) Ademo recorded a telephone conversation he wasn’t privy to. and 2) the proof lies in his own devices. So yeah. There was a crime and there were victims.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    There was no suppression of the First. Ademo was committed of wiretapping because he recorded a private telephone conversation.

  • PaulSevere

    I notice Linda Tripp never faced any prosecution, even as her surreptitious phone wiretapping violated the laws of Maryland. But we the people benefited from the transparency of our paid public employees.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    She got lucky and also had a great lawyer that brought her Federal immunity to light. Tripp isn’t applicable.

  • PaulSevere

    Oh, and yes, that was about your “presidence”.

  • PaulSevere

    Thank you, t(hing), for explaining why. The gadfly free press, treasured by the founders, just has to be suppressed in the dark days of Empire now that the Republic is dead.

  • PaulSevere

    No, Mike, it’s worse than that, much worse. It’s not a waste of taxpayers’ money, it’s a misappropriation for dark and sinister purposes, protection of the future violators of Freedom of the Press. Our nation now ranks at 46th in Freedom of the Press, down from 31st only 10 years ago. The trend has only accelerated in the last 5.

  • PaulSevere

    I think Obama already has a mandatory Youth in Asia program.

  • RAD

    She’s in an office open to the public, ostensibly working as a public employee knowingly talking to a reporter/journalist, I think it’s a pretty different scenario than someone planting a bug in someone’s home. It’s already been held public employees have no expectation of privacy on the job while in a public place. The door being closed really doesn’t change those relevant factors. Why is her time on the job her personal private time? How can you violate someone’s privacy where there is no expectation of privacy?

  • Randy Irish

    id like to see this guy myself

  • Orion Erickson

    The DA is trying to set a precedence, so there will be fear in filming the police and exposing all the crap they do.

  • Orion Erickson

    Just because he mentions spending tax money isn’t the only reason he didn’t cop a plea. You are just trying to spred your agenda against the middle class. And you know he doesnt pay taxes just by looking at him. How does that work?

  • Orion Erickson

    Wow, you admit to being in the clan?

  • mediabites

    Grab dem ankles buddy gonna be a ruff ride