Archive | Free Keene RSS feed for this section
Video

Bailiff censored Keene State College students

The government’s war on cameras goes on the offensive against the documentary video crew covering the State’s trial against me. Reports are that Bailiff Tebo once again targeted journalists, this time demanding that they delete video. Here is some of my raw reporting posted to Google+ including pictures and an interview with the producer and cinematographer of the State of Liberty documentary.

Garret Ean of Free Concord TV reports:

Film students making a documentary at Keene State College are forced to delete video around the time of the completion of the proceedings by bailiff Tebo at Cheshire County Superior Court in Keene. They were granted a motion by the judge prior to the trial to be the sole media crew for the trial and Tebo had no authority to detain them or demand that footage be deleted.

Here’s what Dave Ridley wrote on the Free State forum:

Jason Talley of Talley.TV is reporting that one or more court personnel forced a KSC documentary crew to erase video.   The alleged incident took place inside Cheshire County Superior Court, about 5 blocks north of the college.  The students are part of a substantial filming project aimed at documenting the edgy “liberty struggle” of activists in this once-quiet western New Hampshire city.

They were apparently attempting to film court proceedings against Talley himself.  He was arrested in 2011 and charged with contempt of court for having a video camera in the lobby without permission.

Talley made his claim April 17 on the syndicated Free Talk Live radio show around the 19 minute mark.

It may have come up again later during the broadcast, but the controversial move appears to have largely escaped notice.  A trailer for the students’ documentary appears to be located here:

Speaking of interesting video, court security cam images of Talley’s “camera possession arrest” last year….has recently been released:

But Talley’s own camera remains in the hands of the authorities.

 

 

Read full story
Video

Free Concord interviews Talley & Jardis after Judge Dismisses Charges

Garrett Ean of FreeConcord.org reports from Keene:

The trial did not last long on Monday, April 16, 2012 in Cheshire County Superior Court. Jason Talley had been arrested in September of last year for possession of a camera in the courthouse, while he was in the process of going to the clerk’s window to fill out the permission slip to record a hearing. The prosecutor did not fill out the proper forms for lowering the magnitude of the charges in the days prior to trial. This motivated the judge to dismiss the case.

Read full story
Quotes

Kate Ager, a Dissatisfied “Customer” of the Cheshire County Superior Court

At 9:00AM this morning, I went to the Cheshire County Superior Courthouse for the trial of Jason Talley, who was caged for possessing a camera at the Superior Courthouse on September 23, 2011 at approximately 8:30AM. Cecelia and I both had the intention of testifying as witnesses this morning, as we were the only people to witness the arrest that were not court personnel.

As part of his efforts to bring transparency to government, Jason’s intention that morning in September was to film a hearing that was scheduled to take place at 9AM. After passing through the ‘security’ area, one of the two bailiffs present asked what was on his belt; Jason explained that the thumb-sized device was his personal camera as he approached the clerk’s window a feet away to ask for a form to fill out before filming the hearing. Quickly, the two bailiffs grabbed Jason and pushed him into the corner while trying to steal the small camera from him. After the aggressive bailiffs put handcuffs on Jason’s wrists, he sat down, as he did not want to “provide any assistance to these strangers in their unlawful crackdown on cameras and violence against a member of the free press.”

When I arrived at the courthouse this morning, multiple people were standing out front holding signs and distributing jury nullification fliers. Inside the courthouse, I proceeded to the second floor where Talley’s trial was to be held. Every seat in the courtroom was full, and Tebo, the bailiff, ordered those who did not have seats to leave the courtroom. When Judge Barry entered the room, at least four people in my line of vision remained seated.

After sitting down, Judge Barry addressed a college student, Robert, who had put in a notice to record for the documentary film crew he came with. The notice only contained his name, not the other two students present. The judge addressed the person next to Robert who was holding a camera, saying that only those who have put in a notice can film; Robert explained that he was part of the film crew. Next, the judge addressed the female film crew member who was sitting on the opposite side of the room with audio equipment. She stated that she was also part of the film crew, as he yelled over her to “turn the equipment off.” Once the other two members’ names were added to the notice, it was magically no longer a threat/problem that they had video/audio equipment.

The prosecutor, John Webb brought to the attention of Judge Barry, Jason Talley, and Bradley Jardis (Talley’s representation) that he had not sent a certain paper required to try Talley under the penalties of Class A misdemeanors and mentioned three possible ways to proceed. Judge Barry wanted further information and took a 15 minute recess to give John Webb time to do a little homework.

During the recess, I glanced at my cell phone to check the time. Tebo saw the phone in my hand and told me to turn it off. I asked him why I needed to turn my phone off, as it was on silent and not disruptive. At the ‘security checkpoint’ downstairs I was advised to turn the phone off or put it into silent mode. His response was, “Shut it off.” I did not. It did not disrupt the proceedings.

When Judge Barry returned, a number of people once again remained seated. Bradley Jardis continued pushing for dismissal of the case, which was not one of the three options that John Webb agreed was acceptable. The charges against Jason Talley were dismissed without prejudice.

I felt that there were a lot of rude and unnecessary orders as well as hostility coming from some of the staff at the Cheshire Superior Court House today. Overall, a ridiculous amount of time and (your) money was spent in an attempt to put a peaceful member of the media in jail for possessing a camera. I am glad that the formal threats against my friend have been dropped and was glad to leave the courthouse.

Why do you pay for these “services”…or do you?
Kate Ager at ladiesinkeene.com
Read full story

Plea Offered by ‘State’ and Rejected by Talley.TV

During the final pretrial hearing today (that I was coerced into attending) the prosecutor told my legal agent, Bradley Jardis that “the State” would drop their charges to a misdemeanor violation (parking ticket) if I took a “guilty” plea.

It’s not going to happen. I could face up to 6 months 2 years and 6 months in a cage. I’d Never Take A Plea since it was agent of the State who assaulted me before kidnapping and caging me for possessing a camera. Thanks to Brad and others we’re going to make the “Justice” system work for it and it’s going to cost them their time and ill-gotten treasure.

Brad has already gone to the legislature and received support for our efforts and next Brad will go before a jury to explain the camera crackdown, the corruption and the coverup in the Cheshire County Court System. We go to trial TBD in April.

Brad made the following statement of Facebook:

The Cheshire County Attorney offered Jason Talley a plea to a violation level offense with a $150 fine, paid by the 3 days he spent incarcerated for $50/day. Basically no nothing just a violation “disorderly conduct.”

We refused to take the plea.

We also requested the Superior Court halt proceedings so we can ask the NH Supreme Court if Part I articles #8 and #10 of the NH Constitution actually mean what they say.

Our adventure in legal land continues. Please support the work of Brad to help achieve Justice and make the court system more transparent in New Hampshire. He has sunk a lot of time and money into this case so he agreed to the fundraiser below. Your support would be greatly appreciated.

Read full story
Video

I’m Featured in a Documentary on the “State of Liberty”

A film crew from Keene State College has decided to follow Keene area activists around, including myself, to capture this moment in history. They attended my last court hearing and recorded me multiple times despite being told by deputy sheriffs and bailiffs to stop. That experience probably helped the Freedom Speaks production crew understand the  threats that I face – now that they face them too. More at StateofLibertyFilm.com.

Read full story
Video

Jardis: Judges perpetrated cover-up for Burke (Ridley Report)

Read full story
Video

Free Keene TV Interviews Brad Jardis about State vs. TalleyTV

Read full story

State vs. Talley.TV: Motion to Dismiss

This Motion to Dismiss was drafted by Brad Jardis and  is available as a PDF or as a Google Doc.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CHESHIRE, SS SUPERIOR COURT

Case No. 213-2011-CR-00216
State v.
Jason Talley

Motion to Dismiss

Jason Talley moves this Honorable Court to dismiss all charges pending in the matter of case number 213-2011-CR-00216 due to the fact that the charges in this case originiated from rules enacted specifically to cover up and prevent future media coverage of criminal conduct committed by New Hampshire Judicial Branch officials. In support of this motion, Jason states as follows:

1. The New Hampshire Constitution in Part I, Article 22 reads as follows:
Free speech and liberty of the press are essential to the security of freedom in a state: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved. (emphasis added)

2. The Marriam-Webster Dictionary defines “inviolable” as:

secure from violation or profanation
or
secure from assault or trespass : unassailable

3. On June 28th 2011, independent journalist Adam Mueller of CopBlock.org attempted to interview Keene Circuit Court Presiding Judge Edward Burke about his decision to use taxpayer funds to imprison a peaceful individual who chose to protest a ban on wearing some kinds of hats while sitting in his courtroom. The conversation about public policy and its enforcement by a public official (the video of which is viewable in its entirety at www.CopBlock.org/ImproperInfluence) is as follows:

Adam Mueller: “Judge Burke, can I ask you a few questions about a hat, and how that constitutes contempt?”
Adam Mueller: “You think people want to pay for someone to be in jail for five days for wearing a hat?”
Adam Mueller: “It’s kind of rediculious to waste taxpayer money on something like that, isn’t it?”
Adam Mueller: “Sir, I just want to have a conversation.”
Judge Burke: “Bailiff! Bailiff! This person is threatening me about a decision I just made.”
Adam Mueller: “I’m not threatening you. I’m asking questions.”
Judge Burke: “He’s threatening.” *points to Adam* “That’s a criminal offense.”
Bailiff: “Come on, sir, you’re in custody.”

4. Mr. Mueller, a member of the free press who was acting as such, was imprisoned for two days on the aforementioned false allegations made by Judge Burke for two days prior to the Cheshire County Attorney dropping the charges.

5. New Hampshire law makes it a criminal offense to falsely report that another has committed a crime to law enforcement authorities. The law, False Reports to Law Enforcement, is codified at RSA 641:4 and reads:

A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he:

I. Knowingly gives or causes to be given false information to any law enforcement officer with the purpose of inducing such officer to believe that another has committed an offense; or

6. As a result of Judge Burke being seen publicly on the Internet telling a lie which resulted in an innocent man and member of the media being imprisoned for two days (and his resulting criminal investigation which has still yet to be concluded by the Sullivan County Attorney), Circuit Court Chief Judge Edwin Kelley abused his authority granted by the New Hampshire Supreme Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 54 (which was granted to the Supreme Court originally by the people of the State of New Hampshire through Part II, Article 73-a of the New Hampshire Constitution) by enacting Circuit Court Order 2011-03 on July 1st 2011, not more than one day after Mr. Mueller was released from state custody. By doing so, Chief Judge Kelley stripped citizens of this state of their federal and state constitutional rights to hold government officials accountable for not only public acts, but criminal acts, committed in public areas of a public building.

7. Circuit Court Order 2011-03 itself was so bold as to state that members of the public had “accosted the presiding justice(,)” a reference undoubtedly to Judge Burke’s false statements three days prior about Mr. Mueller’s constitutionally protected conduct which ended with him falsely imprisoned for two days.

8. As a result of the embarrassment Judge Burke faced by being seen publicly on video telling a lie (and his resulting criminal investigation which has still yet to be concluded by the Sullivan County Attorney), Superior Court Chief Judge Tina Nadeau abused her authority granted by the New Hampshire Supreme Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 54 (which was granted to the Supreme Court originally by the people of the State of New Hampshire through Part II, Article 73-a of the New Hampshire Constitution) by enacting an order on July 1st 2011 that enforced the provisions of Circuit Court Chief Judge Kelley’s order upon the Superior Court system. By doing so, Chief Judge Nadeau stripped citizens of this state of their federal and state constitutional rights to hold government officials accountable for not only public acts, but criminal acts, committed in public areas of a public building.

9. Presiding Justice John Arnold of the Cheshire Superior Court further expanded the order adopted by Superior Court Chief Judge Nadeau by enacting “Order In Reference To Administrative Order 2011-3” on July 15th 2011. This order outright banned the possession of any device commonly used by the media to hold government officials who wield tremendous power accountable to the people from whom they derive their power.

11. The first court order adopted by Chief Judge Kelley served as the root of a now poisonous tree which restricts constitutional rights through a total of three court orders specifically immediately issued following a criminal act committed by a judge being caught on camera.
12. Were Cheshire County Superior Court Presiding Judge Arnold’s order not in effect on the date of Mr. Talley’s arrest, Mr. Talley never would have been arrested as the bailiffs would never have taken issue with the innocuous possession of a recording device.

13. Mr. Talley believes the judicial orders issued by New Hampshire’s two chief trial court judges and the Cheshire County Superior Court Presiding Judge John P. Arnold represent an abuse of the public trust as they constitute an effort on the part of the Judicial Branch of the State of New Hampshire to ensure that any future criminal acts which result in the deprivation of liberty on the part of a citizen of this state never be caught on camera again.

Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Jason Talley, requests this honorable Court to order the following relief:

Dismiss all charges pending in this matter; and
Grant any other relief this honorable Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
Jason Talley

01/31/12 By
Bradley Jardis
42 Main Street #27
Dover, NH 03820

I hereby certify that on the above date, a copy of this motion was hand-delivered to Assistant Cheshire County Attorney John Webb.

Bradley Jardis

Read full story

Impeachment Hearing for “Judge” John P. Arnold

On Tuesday, February 21st at the New Hampshire State House, members of the legislative branch will hold hearings about Judge John P. Arnold, a member of the State’s judicial branch. David Vandenberg has successfully gotten the grievance panel to schedule a hearing regarding the conduct of John P. Arnold, a senior Judge at the Cheshire County Superior Court. He’s the man in a flowing black gown who deemed your peaceful blogger “in contempt of court” before having me kidnapped and assaulted. Additionally the following events have been reported to #Fr33:

Arnold jails Jim Johnson indefinitely for refusing to fill out a court form, a clear violation of his fifth amendment right to not testify against himself.

On July 5th, 2011 – Superior court head judge Tina Nadeau orders all cameras, video, and audio recording devices banned from superior court and Arnold upholds it with another order specifically adding cell phones to the list of banned items.  In addition to  this is a clear violation of NH RSA 91-A:4 and Article 22 of the NH bill of rights.

On Juy 28th, 2011 – Arnold refuses to dismiss cases that have been sitting without action on the prosecutor’s part for over six months.  Defendant Ian Freeman never asked for continuance, so all delays were the court’s fault.  Prior to that, the case was in district court for six months.  Over a year before trial is scheduled, and Arnold thinks that’s a “speedy trial”.

Do you have a grievance against Judge Arnold? Contact talleytv@gmail.com or leave a voicemail at 678.TALLEYTV.

Read full story

State vs Talley.TV: Notification of Criminal Defense

Brad Jardis crafted and submitted the following today. It’s a requirement to share what our “defense” will be presenting to the jury. It’s available as a Google Doc and as a PDF.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CHESHIRE, SS SUPERIOR COURT

Case No. 213-2011-CR-00216
State v.
Jason Talley

Notification of Criminal Defense

Pursuant to Superior Court Rule 101, Jason Talley notifies this Honorable Court of the following criminal defense: Effect of Ignorance or Mistake (RSA 626:3).
The basis of the defense is as follows:

1. The New Hampshire Constitution in Part I, Article 22 reads as follows:
Free speech and liberty of the press are essential to the security of freedom in a state: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved. (emphasis added)

2. The Marriam-Webster Dictionary defines “inviolable” as:
secure from violation or profanation
or
secure from assault or trespass : unassailable
3. RSA 626:3 reads in part:

II. A person is not relieved of criminal liability because he acts under a mistaken belief that his conduct does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense unless his belief is founded upon a statement of the law contained in a statute or other enactment, or an administrative order or grant of permission, or a judicial decision of a state or federal court, or a written interpretation of the law relating to the offense officially made by a public servant, agency or body legally empowered with authority to administer, enforce or interpret such law. The defendant must prove a defense arising under this subsection by a preponderance of evidence. (Emphasis added)

4. Being aware of Part I, Article 22 of the New Hampshire Constitution, Mr. Talley believed that his conduct could not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense as it is an “inviolably preserved” constitutional right to hold public officials accountable for public acts in public places.

5. Mr. Talley was aware that on August 26th 2011 the First Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that filming public officials in public spaces was a clearly established First Amendment right. ( See attached Glik v. Cunniffee, Savalis, Hall-Brewster, and City of Boston, MA – No 10-1764 ) In its order, the federal appeals court wrote:

“We conclude, based on the facts alleged, that Glik was exercising clearly established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause.”

6. Bailiffs at the security checkpoint of the Cheshire County Superior Court are “officers” (see RSA 594:1-a) and a public building is a “public space.”

7. Mr. Talley intends to argue that stripping a constitutionally protected right as a result of criminal behavior by a government official (as detailed in the Motion to Dismiss) fails to be a compelling governmental interest which would justify the stripping of “inviolably preserved” rights within public areas of public court facilities.

Respectfully submitted,
Jason Talley

01/31/12 By
Bradley Jardis
42 Main Street #27
Dover, NH 03820

I hereby certify that on the above date, a copy of this motion was hand-delivered to Assistant Cheshire County Attorney John Webb.

Bradley Jardis

Read full story