If you did not know, charges were dropped against all the remaining defendants of the NH9 – the individuals targeted and arrested at an October 2021 Executive Council Meeting. And here’s something else you might not know. Things have gotten more interesting since then.
We know you can get your ginned-up charges dropped if you subpoena the Governor as a witness – which he was. You can also ask important questions of your Executive Councilor who was present during the illegal arrests, like, “Did you knowingly participate and coordinate the unlawful arrests of nine innocent people on October 13th, 2021.”
One of Janet Stevens’ constituents asked that very question. This was her response.
Since a polite “no” would have been easier than blocking him, some folks might conclude EC Stevens has something to hide. Complicity would be the thing.
In the event of a civil suit, should Councilor Stevens expect to be subpoenaed as a witness? She was near the Governor when he appeared to signal the State Police to arrest and remove nine individuals who appeared to have been identified in advance, and there’s evidence to suggest this. Terese Grinnell Bastarche’s “Defendant’s Opposition to Motion To Quash Subpoena Of Governor Christopher T. Sununu” includes details you can – on your very own – confirm by watching the video that has been available since the day of the arrests. It is interesting reading.
- The Governor is the Prime Material Witness in the Case
- The video in this matter does not disclose anything that could be remotely characterized as a “disruption” by the defendant prior to her arrest.
- Governor Sununu is uniquely situated to testify whether, when, and how the meeting was disrupted.
If you need more proof, Governor Sununu is listed on the complaint as having ordered the arrests. Now go back and look at the video and ask yourself when and how those nine individuals were identified when no one actually did anything to disrupt the meeting.
The arrests appear planned, and these nine individuals were targeted. The Governor signaled the State police, who then went right to those people and removed them. The arrests were only disruption of that meeting to occur.
You don’t need to be an Executive Councilor to see that.
While we wait for word of a civil suit, any or all five Executive Councilors should expect to get subpoenaed to testify, including Councilor Stevens’ whose blocked constituent might have a different bone to pick.
Has she violated his first amendment rights by blocking him on a social media account where she engages in a reasonable amount of political communication? It is a common tactic of elected officials, regardless of political party, to block people. One I caution against. Several cases addressing the issue have been decided, so there is a growing precedent to suggest that blocking constituents may violate their First Amendment Rights in some instances.
I’m sure Councilor Stevens can find a judge in New Hampshire to disagree. That doesn’t seem too difficult for people in positions of power in this state. You then hope your accuser can’t afford to climb the Judicial ladder to a Circuit Court or Supreme Court. Most cannot.
What you can’t change is that Councilor Stevens blocked him, and now thousands of her constituents will know about it. The violation is a subject of debate among likely voters instead of between Janet and the constituent she blocked. You’re welcome.
Two closing points.
First, I get that annoying, angry, or vulgar trolls may not have much defense if blocked. Our practice is to remind people to be polite and on point when reaching out to anyone in government, with the understanding that, short of a finite number of circumstances, blocking a constituent on social media might violate the law.
Second, the constituent’s question was nothing that rose to the level of an annoying, angry, vulgar troll. “Did you knowingly participate and coordinate the unlawful arrests of nine innocent people on October 13th, 2021,” is a relevant question whose answer should be no. That’s not what the counselor did, which implies many things other than no.
If you were thinking about issuing a subpoena for a witness in a civil trial against Governor Sununu for false arrest, assuming there was one, Janet Stevens looks more than ever like your gal.
I’m sure that’s what she was thinking when she blocked the constituent rather than answer the question.
After her charges were dropped, Terese Grinnell Bastarche sat down for an interview with the GIP Guys. This is an excellent resource if you’d like more background on that day and what followed.
