PDA

View Full Version : NH-FSP President demands apology from Concord PD for implying FSP is terrorist org.




Anti Federalist
08-02-2013, 09:33 AM
Hat Tip to "Keith and Stuff" for the article:



Free State Project Demands Apology for "Domestic Terrorism" Claims

http://freestateproject.org/blogs/fsp-demands-apology-domestic-terrorism-claims

http://freestateproject.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/content_type_images/blogs/bearcat.jpg?itok=RvFzEmVK

The Concord NH Police Department has made false and misleading statements in the above cited grant application for $258,024 in federal funds from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to receive a Lenco Bearcat armored vehicle, hereinafter the “Tank.”

The DHS grant application states: “The State of New Hampshire’s experience with terrorism slants primarily towards the domestic type. We are fortunate that our State has not been victimized from a mass casualty event from an international terrorism strike however on the domestic front, the threat is real and here. Groups such as the Sovereign Citizens, Free Staters and Occupy New Hampshire are active and present daily challenges. Outside of officially organized groups, several homegrown clusters that are anti-government and pose problems for law enforcement agencies.”

As president of the Free State Project (“FSP”), a NH-based non-profit organization with the sole mission of attracting 20,000 pro-freedom people to the Granite State, I am alarmed and appalled at the cleverly worded insinuation that the FSP is a domestic terrorist threat, or that “Free Staters” are “active and present daily challenges” to the Concord Police Department.

Individuals who sign up for the FSP generally subscribe to the non-aggression principle, an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. Our website specifically states: "Anyone who promotes violence, racial hatred, or bigotry is not welcome."

Sadly, the DHS grant application only came to light through an ACLU public records request, and not as a result of transparent governance. Launched earlier this year, the ACLU program, “The Militarization of Policing in America,” with the slogan “Towns Don’t Need Tanks,” aims to determine the extent to which local police departments are now using federally subsidized military technology and war-like tactics in their communities.

From the ACLU’s March 6, 2013 press release: "’Equipping state and local law enforcement with military weapons and vehicles, military tactical training, and actual military assistance to conduct traditional law enforcement erodes civil liberties and encourages increasingly aggressive policing...’ said Kara Dansky, senior counsel for the ACLU's Center for Justice.”

I concur. In the same way the tenor of policing changed when “peace officers” became “law enforcement officers,” no good can come from tanks in small, peaceful communities. In fact, the secrecy of the DHS grant application and the false and misleading allegations therein are prima facie examples of the erosion of civil liberties and aggressive policing referred to by the ACLU.

The New Hampshire Constitution states: “All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.” To discriminate against “Free Staters” for their pro-liberty, pro-peace, small government ideological beliefs, and to defame an organization in the manner set forth in the DHS grant is unconscionable, and unconstitutional.

On behalf of FSP participants, I hereby respectfully demand:

1 - A retraction and amendment of the grant application to remove all references to “Free Staters.” You are reminded that a condition of receipt of the grant’s funding is: “Funding may be suspended or terminated for filing a false certification in this application or other reports or document as part of this program.”

2 - An itemized list by calendar day of the “daily challenges” presented by “Free Staters” to the CPD. Please list individuals, not a class of people.

3 - A written letter of apology from both the City and CPD, which includes the following statements: “The Free State Project is not a domestic terrorist organization,” and “Free Staters do not pose ‘daily challenges’ to the Concord Police Department.”

A copy of this letter will be posted on the Free State Project’s website, and distributed to our media contacts. Your immediate attention to this important matter is appreciated.

Yours in peace and liberty,

Carla Gericke
President, Free State Project

This letter was sent via email and USPS mail on August 2, 2013 to:
Thomas Aspell (Concord City Manager), John Duval (Concord Police Chief), Brian LeBrun (Concord Deputy City Manager) with the reference: "False and Misleading Concord Bearcat DHS Grant Application CFDA #97.067" with cc to Devon Chaffee, Executive Director, NHCLU.

Keith and stuff
08-02-2013, 09:45 AM
Thank you. I am no one of any importance but I don't demand anything. I think it is great that evil statists are calling me a terrorist. IMO, it undermines them and their position. Most importantly,it encourages more people to join the FSP!!

GregSarnowski
08-02-2013, 09:51 AM
I think a lawsuit for defamation would probably get their attention better than a strongly-worded letter. Nothing wrong with trying to recover a little bit of stolen money. Any proceeds could be used to fund FSP recruitment.

Anti Federalist
08-02-2013, 09:59 AM
Thank you. I am no one of any importance but I don't demand anything. I think it great that evil statists are calling me a terrorist. IMO, it undermines them and their position. Most importantly,it encourages more peopl to join the FSP!!

As an "official" supporter of the FSP (I was here before the org. was started but am happy to have contributed) I will "demand" a retraction as well.

In this day and age, the language contained in that grant application, to the FedCoats no less, is dangerous.

"Law enforcement" loosely throwing the "terrorist" label around, is actionable defamation, AFAIC.

I agree with greg.s in post three.

I would support civil suits against the department and the individuals responsible.

TonySutton
08-02-2013, 10:02 AM
oh snap :D

tod evans
08-02-2013, 10:07 AM
As an "official" supporter of the FSP (I was here before the org. was started but am happy to have contributed) I will "demand" a retraction as well.

In this day and age, the language contained in that grant application, to the FedCoats no less, is dangerous.

"Law enforcement" loosely throwing the "terrorist" label around, is actionable defamation, AFAIC.

I agree with greg.s in post three.

I would support civil suits against the department and the individuals responsible.


Especially singling out the individuals responsible, both professionally and personally!


[edit]

This "type" of person must be drug screaming and kicking to the public square and their misdeeds and transgressions laid bare to every member of the community!

This is the very worse form of "rat" there is, a government employee who would sentence their countryman to lifelong scrutiny by federal agents!

Flaying is too good!

Anti Federalist
08-02-2013, 10:12 AM
Concord will get its tank, regardless of any protests.

FedCoat regulations require one, to be in compliance with NIMS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Incident_Management_System

Screen Shot from the .pdf of the application.

http://freestateproject.org/sites/default/files/content_type_files/blogs/concord_bearcat_full.pdf

http://i.imgur.com/kIW5uvR.jpg

Anti Federalist
08-02-2013, 10:16 AM
Oh, and a screenshot of the offending remarks:

http://i.imgur.com/VN1sfY4.jpg

Memory hole protection.

Pericles
08-02-2013, 11:00 AM
I think a lawsuit for defamation would probably get their attention better than a strongly-worded letter. Nothing wrong with trying to recover a little bit of stolen money. Any proceeds could be used to fund FSP recruitment.

Rothbard does not believe in libel, so the anarchist FSPers have no complaint.

Anti Federalist
08-02-2013, 11:02 AM
Rothbard does not believe in libel, so the anarchist FSPers have no complaint.

Zing.

Pericles
08-02-2013, 11:07 AM
Zing.

The grant writer has a property right to his thoughts and accusing him/her of libel violates his/her property rights.

torchbearer
08-02-2013, 11:12 AM
The grant writer has a property right to his thoughts and accusing him/her of libel violates his/her property rights.

if you lie on a grant application, that would be fraud.

69360
08-02-2013, 11:15 AM
I think that is a reasonable request. It's ludicrous to call free staters terrorists.

familydog
08-02-2013, 11:20 AM
Rothbard does not believe in libel, so the anarchist FSPers have no complaint.

Fail. Rothbard argued that the state is an immoral and illegitimate entity. A free society's rules do not apply to highwayman and thieves.

Pericles
08-02-2013, 11:31 AM
Fail. Rothbard argued that the state is an immoral and illegitimate entity. A free society's rules do not apply to highwayman and thieves.

You need to read some Rothbard: https://mises.org/rothbard/Ethics/sixteen.asp

"Does Smith have the right to disseminate false information about Jones? In short, should “libel” and “slander” be illegal in the free society? And yet, once again, how can they be? Smith has a property right to the ideas or opinions in his own head; he also has a property right to print anything he wants and disseminate it. He has a property right to say that Jones is a “thief” even if he knows it to be false, and to print and sell that statement."

"But since every man owns his own mind, he cannot therefore own the minds of anyone else. And yet Jones’s “reputation” is neither a physical entity nor is it something contained within or on his own person. Jones’s “reputation” is purely a function of the subjective attitudes and beliefs about him contained in the minds of other people. But since these are beliefs in the minds of others, Jones can in no way legitimately own or control them. Jones can have no property right in the beliefs and minds of other people."

"We can, of course, readily concede the gross immorality of spreading false libels about another person. But we must, nevertheless, maintain the legal right of anyone to do so."

"Finally, if anyone has the right knowingly to spread false libels about someone else, then, a fortiori, he of course has the right to disseminate those large numbers of statements about others which are in the fuzzy zone of not being clear or certain whether or not the statements are true"

familydog
08-02-2013, 11:37 AM
You need to read some Rothbard: https://mises.org/rothbard/Ethics/sixteen.asp

Suing a government entity for libel does nothing to violate his argument, considering the immorality of government to begin with. The Free State An-Caps have nothing to fear.

Pericles
08-02-2013, 11:45 AM
Suing a government entity for libel does nothing to violate his argument, considering the immorality of government to begin with. The Free State An-Caps have nothing to fear.

Read Rothbard again - his point is that The Free State An-Caps property rights were not violated. If An-Caps accept the concept of libel, they are accepting the rules of "the State", which they claim to be illegitimate.

Keith and stuff
08-02-2013, 11:51 AM
Read Rothbard again - his point is that The Free State An-Caps property rights were not violated. If An-Caps accept the concept of libel, they are accepting the rules of "the State", which they claim to be illegitimate.
The FSP is neither ancap nor anarchist. It doesn't take positions on such things. You do make some interesting points, though. I doubt the FSP will sue, even though the FSP President is a former lawyer.

Pericles
08-02-2013, 11:57 AM
The FSP is neither ancap nor anarchist. It doesn't take positions on such things. You do make some interesting points, though. I doubt the FSP will sue, even though the FSP President is a former lawyer.

To the extent that I wish to make a point it is that a slavish adherence to Rothbard will lead to a number of internal inconsistencies and some interesting effects in the real world. I wish the FSP every success, and hope this incident can be used to stuff it down the tyrant's throat.

tod evans
08-02-2013, 12:05 PM
The men and women of the FSP have had a terrorist moniker hung around their necks as large as any millstone.

The lackeys who took it upon themselves to saddle them with that classification must be held accountable!

familydog
08-02-2013, 12:14 PM
Read Rothbard again - his point is that The Free State An-Caps property rights were not violated. If An-Caps accept the concept of libel, they are accepting the rules of "the State", which they claim to be illegitimate.

You are correct that no property rights were violated. That's not my point. Suing an imaginary entity for a violation of an imaginary rule also does not violate property rights. Not when that imaginary entity can only exist by violating those rights. It's like criticizing a child playing make-believe for following the rules of a made up game.

GregSarnowski
08-02-2013, 12:20 PM
The FSP is neither ancap nor anarchist. It doesn't take positions on such things. You do make some interesting points, though. I doubt the FSP will sue, even though the FSP President is a former lawyer.

I think if nothing else the FSP should at least join in a class action suit against the IRS regarding the nonprofit scandal. I saw Sorens make a post on the FSP forum about applying for that status a few years back and being rejected due to some nonsense about it being affiliated with the Liberatarian Party. With that issue actual damage can be shown, as well as ideological favoritism.

Carlybee
08-02-2013, 12:27 PM
They need to be held accountable because by allowing them to saddle the FSP with that moniker, is giving them future ammunition to start rounding you guys up under provisions in the Patriot Act for "homegrown terrorists".

The Free Hornet
08-02-2013, 01:00 PM
Could FSP be going about this the wrong way? Why don't they fill out one of those grant forms to get their own damn tank?

That might violate every principle, but a fair argument can be made that the government ought not be arming only one side. Plus it might be funny.

donnay
08-02-2013, 01:24 PM
They need to be held accountable because by allowing them to saddle the FSP with that moniker, is giving them future ammunition to start rounding you guys up under provisions in the Patriot Act for "homegrown terrorists".

Agreed. The Patriot Act in all actuality was set up for us, not foreign terrorists. Also: John Warner Defense Authorization Act and NDAA The targets are the American Al Qaeda.

The MIAC report (http://www.prisonplanet.com/police-trained-nationwide-that-informed-americans-are-domestic-terrorists.html)
The FBI Watch List (http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com/index.php/entry/complete-post-of-fbi-terrorist-watchlist-pamphlets)
TX Terror Training Pamphlet: Anyone Might be a Terrorist (http://www.infowars.com/articles/terror/terror_manual_says_property_rights_activists_terro rists.htm)

muzzled dogg
08-02-2013, 04:18 PM
She should have cc,:'d the dhs grant application approval board or whatever the bureaucracy is called

ItsTime
08-03-2013, 06:56 PM
They need to be held accountable because by allowing them to saddle the FSP with that moniker, is giving them future ammunition to start rounding you guys up under provisions in the Patriot Act for "homegrown terrorists".

Exactly. That and one of the first questions I get asked, when working with liberty groups outside of New Hampshire, is if I a a Free Stater. Will I lose business now they are labeled a terrorist group? I know one farm had their products rejected by a restaurant because they found out the farm works with Free Staters. State police have already been asking people if they were Free Staters if they had liberty stickers on their cars.... It is coming and we must legally fight back.

Anti Federalist
08-03-2013, 10:46 PM
The AP picked up an updated version of the story. Fantastic, AP! Get the FSP in front of the eyes of hundreds of thousands of people, if not more. Maybe this will encourage liberty folks to look into the FSP and discourage statists? Every little bit helps.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/02/5618504/concord-plan-to-buy-armored-vehicle.html

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2013/08/02/2501160/concord-plan-to-buy-armored-vehicle.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new-hampshire/2013/08/02/concord-plan-buy-armored-vehicle-criticized/VJK39f6zKCHzVlWXCqEysJ/story.html

http://www.theolympian.com/2013/08/02/2653010/concord-plan-to-buy-armored-vehicle.html

http://www.bradenton.com/2013/08/02/4640590/concord-plan-to-buy-armored-vehicle.html

http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Concord-plan-to-buy-armored-vehicle-criticized-4702816.php

http://www.newsrt.us/news/concord-plan-to-buy-armored-vehicle-criticized-1138248.html

http://www.allvoices.com/news/15117964-concord-plan-to-buy-armored-vehicle-criticized

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/feeditem/concord-plan-buy-armored-vehicle-criticized

And so on ;)

...