You folks are an inspiration. Sam is missed down here in North Texas and we wish him the best as well as all the rest of you liberty-lovers in the great state of New Hampshire.
Thank you for the updates and keep up the good work. You and the other free-staters are in our thoughts.
The Right to Record is the Right to a Free Press. Apparently, the judge (Burke?) thinks that our Rights are nothing but mere privileges that he can grant or revoke at his whim. The NH Statute related to this is un-Constitutional and definitely needs to be challenged. Regardless, as I've said before, the statute doesn't give the judge any authority whatsoever to prohibit recording devices from the courthouse.
A strict reading of the (un-Constitutional) statute [that;s been cited in previous posts] simply gives the judge the "discretion" to allow or disallow recording DURING A PROCEEDING. It does not give the judge the STATUTORY AUTHORITY to BAN recording devices (which are private property) anywhere within the courthouse, nor even during a proceeding. It simply gives him the explicit authority (under color of law, not the letter of the law) to disallow RECORDING during a proceeding (i.e. cams off).
You folks are an inspiration. Sam is missed down here in North Texas and we wish him the best as well as all the rest of you liberty-lovers in the great state of New Hampshire.
Thank you for the updates and keep up the good work. You and the other free-staters are in our thoughts.
IconNine 2 years ago
Down with big government!
jason7w7d 2 years ago
8 Days? That is a big long. What he charged yet? The is not a flight risk so he should be free till his court date.
HHODork 2 years ago 2
free Sam!
txballoonman 2 years ago
on the job - on the record
EdwardMandellHouse 2 years ago 2
The Right to Record is the Right to a Free Press. Apparently, the judge (Burke?) thinks that our Rights are nothing but mere privileges that he can grant or revoke at his whim. The NH Statute related to this is un-Constitutional and definitely needs to be challenged. Regardless, as I've said before, the statute doesn't give the judge any authority whatsoever to prohibit recording devices from the courthouse.
P3rf3ctStorm 2 years ago 3
A strict reading of the (un-Constitutional) statute [that;s been cited in previous posts] simply gives the judge the "discretion" to allow or disallow recording DURING A PROCEEDING. It does not give the judge the STATUTORY AUTHORITY to BAN recording devices (which are private property) anywhere within the courthouse, nor even during a proceeding. It simply gives him the explicit authority (under color of law, not the letter of the law) to disallow RECORDING during a proceeding (i.e. cams off).
P3rf3ctStorm 2 years ago
Dave you sound tired. Get some sleep brother, get some sleep.
M0LONLABE 2 years ago
Keep up the good work, Dave Ridley!
andyfromsimi 2 years ago 3