GraniteGrok

And for those entities that do not have City Charters (like Manchester, Franklin, Concord, Laconia, et al), the voters in each town get to vote on EVERYTHING that goes on in their town each year - setting the budgets, approving what are called Warrant Articles - changes in zoning, the expending of monies, affirming resolutions (binding or not).  Some are settled at a single meeting (the traditional style that has the talking / arguing and then voting by either voice or hand raise [and sometimes, secret ballot]) or in two meetings (what are called SB2 where the Deliberative Session allows for the talking and a month later by secret ballot).

This past Wednesday was our Town's Deliberative Session and an example of one of the topics that is most likely able to torque me up - that of using the force of Government for personal benefit used against your fellow neighbors or citizens.  The example that I use most often here on the 'Grok is that of NH House Rep Doc Pilliod (R-Belmont), by the request of a local "small boat" marina, to limit the speed limit of boats on Lake Winnipesaukee for "safety reasons" where the actual safety data shows no needs.

Well, during the Deliberative session, I ran into yet another example of this behavior.  There is a long standing animus between a business entity called the Ames Farm and a lawyer by the name of Stephen Nix here in my hamlet.  For years now, the latter has tried to shut down parts of the operation of this 120 year cottage / restaurant / boat launch resort by using a number of legal maneuvers.  In essence, he is trying to take away one of our basic Rights, that of Private Property, from this family so as to enhance the value of his property.  Gordon Gecko has no skin on this play!

Here is what I wrote on my local blog, GilfordGrok:

TOWN OF GILFORD

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT

To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

...

For the last few years, it seems that the preponderance of Warrants have been nothing but zoning issues. For those that may be following GraniteGrok, the writings have become more oriented to basic principles - what are our Natural Rights as debated and described by our Founding Fathers and encapsulated in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States (as opposed to the Progressive philosophy that relinquishing those rights to a more and more centralized Government (pick your level) is preferable such that Government can solve all ills and provide for all needs...but I digress.

The question is, what is the boundary between controlling the character of the town and the Right to Private Property?  And this year, which are those that are:

• Concerned with defining the character of the town?
• Concerned with safety issues
• Concerned with safety issues but have, in my opinion, crossed that line of the "common good" vs the individual Right to Private Property?
• Simply using the the coercive force of Government to destroy someone else's Right to Private Property (and the value thereof) so as to facilitate their own well being the value of their Private Property (AKA - the Stephen Nix vs Ames Farm Warrant)?
  

And yes, this is the Article that I stood up in opposition to at the Deliberative Session (the FIRST SESSION, above), that in my belief, is yet more "legalfare (e.g., legal warfare) leveled by Mr. Nix against the Ames's. Let me address this Article first.

ARTICLE 9: Are you in favor of adopting an amendment to the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as submitted by petition to amend Section 5.2.1, Island and Shore Frontage District, of the Gilford Zoning Ordinance by adding a new Section 5.2.1 (g) to prohibit public boat launching ramps and related parking and storage facilities on shorefront lots under certain circumstances, but to allow private boat launching ramps and related parking and storage facilities on shorefront lots as an accessory use under certain circumstances? (The Planning Board does not recommend the adoption of this amendment.) (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)

Mr. "no boats for you" Nix, from my viewpoint, would like nothing more than for the Ames Farm to go defunct.  Frankly, his cause is just about the same as the person who JUST moves into either the flight path of the Laconia Municipal Airport (just gotta love that name...given that is located in Gilford) or right near it complaining about the noise.

Er, who was there first (and Ames has been operating for 120 years), Mr. Nix?  And to me, that is a fundamental issue.  He moved to his present residence well after the establishment of the business which, by most accounts, has been a positive venue for tourists in Gilford.

I'd be willing to bet, if his home was on the other side of town near Meadowbrook, he'd be complaining there too (er, still).

In my opinion, this is nothing more than a lawyer than can freely throw up obstacle after complaint after lawsuit after lament (you get the idea) and try to spend / annoy / limit / deny the rightful owners of their Right to the free use of their Private Property strictly for his benefit.

What was important was the question that I asked of John Ayers, Director of Planning and Land Use department: "Would this article, in your professional opinion,  adversely impact the operations at the Ames Farm?"

His answer: Yes

This is NOT, it seems, about the character of the town - it is all about what Steve Nix wants and will not stop until his wants are met.  There's a word that describes that kind of behavior....

I URGE you to vote no on Article 9

After all, what would YOU do if a lawyer or developer felt that his needs came before yours, and he is a "Johnny-come-lately" to the neighborhood?

Posted by Skip at 3:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On Saturday during our MTNP radio interview (listen to podcast here) with Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta-- a candidate for the Republican nomination for NH's 1st Congressional District seat-- I learned that part of the so-called "cars for clunkers" process required the computer user to agree to give the federal government full rights to the contents of the computer. Glenn Beck also discussed it on his TV show. The not-so fine print, in pretty plain English, is downright scary.

Who will deny Big Brother is here?

Posted by Doug at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

New national bird to replace Bald Eagle?

As we prepare to celebrate yet another Fourth of July, I cannot help but feel a bit melancholy as I review and contemplate the Declaration of Independence, and think about the birth of this “great experiment”, known as America. Have we reached the end of the line, as far as our belief in and adherence to the principles upon which this Nation was founded? When reading the beautiful and eloquent words as created and agreed to by the Founding Fathers, how can you not feel a sense of distance and unfamiliarity when comparing them against the realities we see today.

Consider what is unquestionably the most famous part of the Declaration:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

Are there any “self evident truths” and “unalienable rights” here in the new Age of Obama, or are these things just merely quaint, outdated ideas from a bygone era? Do these words somehow mean the “Creator” gives a woman the right to “terminate” pregnancies? As she exercises “choice,” what about the unborn child’s right to “life?” President Obama has famously declared that that he wouldn’t want his young daughters “punished” with a pregnancy. So much for the unalienable right to life for his grandchildren-- Such a fine example set by our “dear leader.” What part of the Fourth does he honor?

In our supposed enlightened age, how many Americans even acknowledge some sort of “Creator,” anyway? While many claim to believe, they willingly turn a blind eye as the rights given us by the Creator are systematically stripped away—even to the point of a knowing chuckle or two at those who suggest that much of what our present government does is immoral. “What old-fashioned notions,” they say. “Don’t be so melodramatic.” One must conclude that if they actually believed in a God as a giver of rights to begin with, they would be more vehement in the defense of such. Think about that—why would a person go to the mat for something he or she doesn’t believe in?

Does “pursuing Happiness” give a person the right to the fruits of the labor of others? I suppose one could be happy with getting an extra “slice of the pie” that somebody else has paid for. But what if you happen to be the person that actually earned the “pie?” How happy will you be at the prospect of watching more and more of your just due taken and distributed to others? Is this not what’s happening on a grand scale all around America today? No matter where you look-- whether it’s the federal, state, county, or local government—it’s all the same: all are poised to take an even greater share of the fruits of our labors through taxation. They say money can’t buy happiness, but it sure does help. No matter what consists of “happiness” for a person in 2009, the fact is, it’s going to cost more.

Continue reading "Fourth of July. Are we even worthy?" »

Posted by Doug at 8:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been reading The QandO Blog for a while now - these "ruminations" from Dale Franks caught my eye (emphasis mine):

...Since the 1960's, however, both parties took radically different paths. The Republicans, on the whole, embraced a more libertarian, laissaiz-faire attitude towards government, while the Democrats moved down an explicitly Marxist path.

As a result, we've split into to warring camps, unlike any time since the Pre-Civil War era, and before that, the post-Washington era.

Even more troubling is that politics has become a religion, especially on the Left.

Now, when you say that, the objection always arises that the Religious Right is worse. On some issues, that may be true. Take abortion, for example. Many on the religious right regard abortion as evil, because it consists of killing an innocent baby. On that particular issue, they approach it from an explicitly religious viewpoint.

For the Left, however, all policy is a moral statement. Practically every argument they make, whether it be on tax policy, welfare reform, or any of a host of other things, are advanced on explicitly moral grounds. If you disagree, you are morally deficient, i.e, selfish, racist, etc.

It's not really a joke when we say America has two parties, the stupid party and the evil party. It's what, by and large, we actually beleive.

But, increasingly, the right is beginning to look upon the Left as being actively evil, too, not just stupid.

Actually, I just think they are deluded and refuse to learn from the progressive policies that have either failed in the past or failed in other countries.  But it does seem that the Left believes that we on the Right are evil - because of our insistence on our emphasis on the individual instead of the group.

For instance "spreading the wealth" is increasingly seen as a code phrase for violating some people's property rights by taking the money they've earned in order to give it to those who haven't.

Increasingly, America's political parties will be seen as the evil party...and the evil party.

Don't expect any explosions of bipartisanship in the near future.

Property rights are dead in this country. They're like an exceptionally well made-up body at a wake. "Why, he looks so lifelike! It's like he's only sleeping!" But he's still dead. Billy Beck points it out, via this quote from Bill St. Clair.

I believe that the purpose of Mr. Obama's presidency will be to do as much as possible to destroy the concept of private property.

But, as Billy notes, if the idea of property rights were still alive, there wouldn't even be an Obama candidacy. He'd've been written off as an unelectable Commie right from the start.

This shouldn't be a surprise, though. Once we passed the 16th Amendment, allowing a personal income tax, it was pretty much inevitable. Once you agree that the government has a right to any part of your income, you've agreed in principle that they can take all of it. The principle that the rewards from the sweat of your brow are yours is dead the moment you agree that the government has a legitimate claim on it.

All that's left to do now is to toss off a few shots of whiskey over the body.

But not Jameson's. That's Protestant whiskey.

Posted by Skip at 7:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Regular readers know that the rise of quasi-public "special operations groups" (SWAT teams) within the Granite State law enforcement community has caught our attention. In this prior post about a raid in Bristol, NH involving some 20 masked police officers, I mentioned two other recent events involving, what is in my opinion, an overwhelmingly excessive use of force given the circumstances. One happened in state-- the Charlestown incident in which a man in a trailer was killed as a combined special operations group/ state police operation sought to arrest his son. The other I mentioned occured in Maryland where a SWAT team stormed a mayor's home in search of drugs and ended up killing his dogs as they held him and his mother-in law prisoner in his own home.

Just like here in NH, albeit no HUMAN ended up dead, the actions by the overzealous paramilitary police squad have been deemed "justified." The following op-ed was found in the Concord Monitor. If you can read this, and not come away outraged, then, well, you're probably a cop of some sort. Otherwise... oh never mind. Just read for yourself:

It's sad, of course, that Cheye Calvo's dogs were blown away, left for hours in two pools of blood on the floors of his living and dining rooms. It's unfortunate, to be sure, that Calvo's front door had to be burst open, that it was necessary to plant his mother-in-law on the floor, arms bound, a high-caliber weapon pointed at her head, or that his house had to be trashed, every drawer flipped over, his belongings strewn about. Tragic, really.

But no apology is necessary, you see. Even though Calvo and his wife were exonerated of any criminal act almost instantly after their house was raided in July, even though the officers had done next to zero investigative work before smashing into the Calvo house, "The guys did what they were supposed to do," Prince George's (Md.) County Sheriff Michael Jackson says. "They had a legitimate court order to be there."

Never mind that the dozen or so officers from the county police and sheriff's SWAT team didn't have a warrant with them when they stormed Calvo's house in Berwyn Heights, Md. Never mind that the authorities seem unaware that a 2005 Maryland law spells out exactly when "no-knock" raids are permitted.

No, an internal review concluded by the sheriff's office last week has - surprise, surprise - cleared the officers of any wrongdoing, even though no investigator had spoken with Calvo, his wife or his mother-in-law. "Unfortunately, we had to engage the animals, but that engagement was justified," Jackson says.

The story of the raid on Calvo's house - a 32-pound box of marijuana had been FedExed there, part of a drug dealer's scheme to intercept the package before the innocent residents got home - was appalling enough when it first broke. But as we learn more about what happened, and as the authorities deflect questions, it becomes a much deeper scandal.

Click here to read the rest. Can you imagine if the victim hadn't been the mayor? What if this had happened to a person apt to defend himself in a more aggressive manner-- would he or she have ended up like the dogs? These stories need serious consideration as we further empower law enforcement beyond what has long been the norm here in these parts. It seems that in the absence of REAL threats requiring overwhelming force, some, chafing at the bit for some action, could end up just a wee bit too trigger happy than what's good. But then again, if they never get called on the carpet and made to pay any consequences for ANY questionable actions (on or off duty), why would they even care? Why, I'll bet some of 'em just KNOW they're above the law...

Posted by Doug at 8:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

To protect and serve?

For many years, visitors to my former business location might have noticed a picture on the wall-- torn from a newspaper-- of a “police” checkpoint in Serbia. What captured my interest was the caption telling the reader that the picture was of a “police volunteer” manning an urban checkpoint in the early days of the gradual anarchy that was to come in that country. It always struck me that this so-called policeman, finger on trigger, had an AK47 in the nostril of some hapless guy at the wheel of his Honda Civic, and was, according to the caption, checking his identification papers.

The poor fellow in the car, aside from the fact he had the muzzle of a machine gun literally stuck in his face, looked like he could have been your average American thirty-something on his way to work at the office. In fact, the background of the photo looked like it could have been downtown Anywhere, USA, even including a uniformed police officer in the square directing traffic. Except, more striking than all of the elements of the scene, was the fact that this “policeman,” dressed entirely in black, was wearing a ski mask. “Not good,” I always thought, when looking at the picture.

That picture hung stapled to the old shop wall for years, and many conversations were held about it. When events like the Elian Gonzalez seizure and the Branch Davidian raid took place, parallels were drawn. As it turned out, most that viewed the old picture agreed, if we ever come to a point when the police here in the States were to start wearing ski masks to hide their identities during the conduct of their duties, things would be getting pretty bad. Thankfully though, we were in America, where such things could never happen, right?

According to documents filed at the U.S. District Court in Concord, NH at the end of July, a family from Grafton County is suing for a series of civil rights violations that allegedly occurred during an early morning raid of their Bristol apartment.

“On August 2, 2006, twenty (20) members of the CNHSOU”

(Central NH Special Operations Unit) and three members of

“the Bristol Police Department, executed an arrest and search warrant at 36 South Main Street, Bristol, New Hampshire. The residence was occupied by Thomas Mlodzinski, his wife Tina Mlodzinski, their 15 year old daughter JM, Tina Mlodzinski’s son, Michael Rothman, and Michael’s girlfriend Amy Furmanic and their two week old daughter.”

The filing states,

“Police were seeking to arrest Michael Rothman, who was then 17 years old, for assault and were looking for a baton (night stick) allegedly used in the assault. The warrants authorized the arrest of Michael Rothman only and the search of the residence and the person of  Michael Rothman only.”

If you’re like me, you should be wondering why it would take TWENTY-THREE law enforcement officers to arrest a seventeen year old. He must have been heavily armed or something, right? Apparently not— nor were any of those sleeping in the apartment, either.

The lawsuit details the events as they unfolded just before 4 in the morning two years ago:

Continue reading "Masked cops? Not good..." »

Posted by Doug at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

During the brouhaha over the "domestic wiretaps" and "secret spying", I often heard:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".   -Benjamin Franklin 

Those on the Left wailed that the Bush Administration was the harbinger of fascism, that the Constitution was being rent asunder by an intrusive government.  Yet, the target audience for these wiretaps were terrorists on foreign soil. So, where's the hue and cry as another President (thankfully, still a wannabe) is issuing utterances that would go FAR beyond what the wiretaps do and affect all US citizens.  And the effect is not just materially, not just financial, but in that most intangible (yet most important) right of all - freedom.

Pray tell, how would these statements, if enacted, increase my sense of freedom, for I only see decreases?

• "We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
  
• "We can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." 
• "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground." 
• "I certainly think the free market has failed." 
  
• "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in the entire economy, that they are being watched." 
• "What I want to do is take those profits and apply them to alternative energy."
  
• "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." 

The candidate is effectively espousing socialistic, nay, communistic principles here that would make Marx and Lenin proud.   That candidate is Hillary Clinton.  She is espousing the right of government to TAKE from citizens as if it is the government's absolute right to do so.  She will abrogate one of our country's most basic rights - the right of private property.  She is all about dismantling our capitalistic system in the vein of "we know better than you; government is better than the private sector".

Worst of all...

Continue reading "I have a question for the Left: how do these increase Freedom?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Manchester – Fifteen-year-old Mirage Rousseau said she came home Wednesday afternoon to find two Manchester police officers inside her home, peering into her and her older brother's bedrooms.

.

She asked them what they were doing inside her family's 317 Rimmon St. apartment. They told her someone left the door open, and they walked in to search for a 14-year-old runaway.

.

Mirage and her dad, Wilfred Rousseau, said the doors to their apartment are never left open because of their Persian cat, named "Kitty." They said the doors were definitely closed Wednesday because Kitty is in heat.

.

Rousseau said, after learning of the officers being inside his home and talking to one of them, he called Manchester police to complain. He received an apology from Lt. James Stankiewicz, the night's shift commander.

.

Stankiewicz said he did apologize for the department because Rousseau was right -- the officers should not have entered the apartment.

.

The officers, whom he refused to identify because the issue has become a personnel matter, had no warrant and no one's permission to enter the apartment, Stankiewicz said.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Posted by Doug at 6:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Police have decided not to prosecute a man charged after he used his home security system to videotape police who came to his home.

Police Chief Timothy Hefferan said the department still believes Michael Gannon violated the state's wiretaping law. But he said he isn't sure the state would win the case at trial.

Gannon said he did nothing wrong. He was arrested after he brought his videotape to the police station. He went there to complain about the officers who came to his home investigating his 15-year-old son...

will discipline one detective in the case who was not as courteous as he should have been, regardless of how provoked he felt he was at the time.

Posted by Doug at 1:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Michael Gannon said he has rejected a Nashua Police Department plea deal to reduce the two felony wiretapping charges against him to a misdemeanor wiretapping charge.

Police said Gannon broke the all-party consent provision of the state's wiretapping law. Gannon has argued that the police knew they were being taped because he told them he had a surveillance system in place when they came to investigate his son.

"I'm a card player, and they (police) are trying to tell me they have all the aces when I'm staring at four aces in my hand," Gannon, 39, of 26 Morgan St., said yesterday. "They offered me the deal (before my probable cause hearing), and I know I did nothing wrong so I said, 'No way am I taking that deal.'"

I am glad that this man has chosen to fight for his rights to enjoy his property peaceably and free from unnecessary government intrusion. In the course of doing so, he is taking a stand for all of us.

Read my initial posting for more details here.

Read about what was said by the police officers here.

How confident are the police in their own case? What do the neighbors think of the police conduct in the matter? Click here.

Posted by Doug at 7:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“We don’t get it right all the time. Although I am not condemning the officers . . . I don’t have all the facts. If it turns out when I do have them all that we erred, then I will be the first to admit it. We wanted to be confident, early on. . . . We wanted a prosecuting source to look at it objectively. Technically, the charge is an accurate one, but sometimes what’s technical and what’s good common sense is not necessarily mutual.”If prosecution isn’t warranted, it’s best to find out sooner rather than later."

Continue reading "UPDATE2: A man's home is his castle..." »

Posted by Doug at 11:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Continue reading "UPDATE: A man's home is his castle? Not quite..." »

Posted by Doug at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A Nashua man is facing two felony charges for allegedly using secret video cameras to tape police who had come to his home to investigate his son’s possible role in a robbery.

Nashua Police arrested Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., on Tuesday and charged him with two felony counts of interception and disclosure of telecommunication or oral communications. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison.

According to court filings, Gannon and his wife, Janet, had videocameras set up at both the front and rear entrances of their home. During an interview with police, Janet Gannon told investigators that the couple bought the cameras from Wal-Mart because there had been some criminal mischief in the parking lot in front of their home.

Nashua Police Sgt. Detective Jeff Maher said that although the cameras were not hidden and police officers were on Gannon’s property when the recording allegedly occurred, Gannon never told the police officers that he was recording their actions and conversations. That makes it a crime, he said.

“Just the fact this recording occurred, a crime was committed,” Maher said.

My friend Tom, who gets the hat-tip for sending me this article asks the following question: "Why can't a homeowner tape record what takes place on his property?" Good question, Tom. I would say this instance represents just one more piece of evidence demonstrating the fact that the notion of private-property rights is fast disappearing in this country.

Oh, and if you were wondering why this particular instance was singled out, perhaps it was what the tape revealed:

Michael Gannon came to the police station Tuesday with a videotape that he said showed the officers being “discourteous.” The tape included a recording of a conversation Gannon had with officers and a second conversation the police had when they were alone.

An additional point to ponder: Would it have been OK if it was a tape of white cops beating a black man?

Posted by Doug at 7:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)