Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?New Hampshire Judge Caught On Video Ordering False Arrest
Incident sparks court order banning cameras in courtroom
Adam Mueller, aka Ademo Freeman, stood inside the Keene District Courthouse in New Hampshire, waiting for Judge Edward Burke to step inside so he could ask him a question.
Less than two minutes later, he was arrested for threatening the judge, a felony charge called “improper influence.”
But Mueller had his camera rolling, so he captured the entire exchange on video.
And there is absolutely no evidence that he threatened Burke.
Here is that exchange, but you can also hear it for yourself in the above video:
(Judge Burke enters the building)
Mueller: “Judge Burke, can I ask you a few questions about a hat … and how that constitutes contempt.”
(Burke ignores him and heads for the stairs)
Mueller: “You think people want to pay for somebody to be in jail for five days for wearing a hat?”
(Burke continues to ignore him as he walks up the stairs with Mueller walking behind him)
Mueller: “It’s kind of ridiculous to waste tax-payer money on something like that, isn’t it?
(Burke reaches the top of the stairs)
Mueller: “Sir, I just want to have a conversation.”
(Burke opens the door and motions to the bailiff)
Burke: “Bailiff, bailiff, this person is threatening me about a decision I just made.”
Mueller: “I’m not threatening you ….”
Mueller is then taken into custody and thrown in jail where he spent two nights before he was bailed on a donated $5,000 bond.
On Wednesday, after viewing the above video, the district attorney’s office dropped the charges against him
But that hasn’t solved the issue that Burke had Mueller falsely arrested.
And it hasn’t solved the issue that Burke directed a court order that now forbids photography or videography in the Keene courthouse.
According to the court order, which was filed July 1, 2011, three days after Mueller’s arrest.
In recent months certain members of the public have caused disruptions of the court's ability to conduct business in Keene. In addition to their refusal to abide by court rules related to the conduct of trials and conduct in the courtroom in general, these members of the public have also congregated in the court's lobby for extended periods of time making it difficult for other members of the public to conduct business with the court and, in particular, creating conditions and disturbances which have obstructed court staff from performing their duties in an orderly way.
Additionally, these members of the public have, on occasion, accosted the presiding judge as he enters and leaves the building in which the court is housed, creating an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation and a legitimate fear for the safety and well-being of the judicial and nonjudicial staff at this court.
Based upon these conditions and facts, and mindful of the holding of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in State v. Moquin, 105 N.H. 9 at 11 (1963) that,
" ... it is the duty and responsibility of courts to be alert to protect the judicial processes from being brought into disrepute and to act vigorously when confronted with acts or conduct which tend to obstruct or interfere with the due and orderly administration of justice ... "
it is ordered as follows:
1. No cameras or audio equipment may be used at any time in the court's lobby or anywhere in the public area of the court's leased premises;
There are some exceptions, which can be read by clicking on the court order in the above link.
William Toler of the Independent Register reported that the ban may be unconstitutional.
“A blanket ban likely would be unconstitutional,” says David Hudson from the First Amendment Center. “Trial judges are granted discretion to determine whether cameras might unduly prejudice court proceedings but generally they must make particularized findings, such as whether there would be prejudice, whether the ban is no broader than necessary and whether there are reasonable alternatives to not permitting coverage.”
As I’ve reported in previous stories, the tensions between Burke and the Free Staters have been ongoing for the past few years as Keene becomes a growing community of activists.
Many of the activists have long accused Burke of being a bully, but it is also obvious that they try their best to test his authority by not removing caps in the courtroom or refusing to disclose their name when arrested.
And those incidents are debatable (we all have our issues we fight for and those don’t rank up there for me).
But here we have a clear case of a judge having a citizen falsely arrested on felony charges.
That issue is not debatable. Burke blatantly lied about Mueller’s actions.
With a judge like that, there is simply no expectation of justice in his courtroom.
Comments
You would think that this might be cause for him to be removed from the bench.
Dishonest judges have no place sitting in judgement.
the judge should have given him an order NOT to follow him or leave him alone or something, letting him know that asking him questions would lead to his arrest...this is an obvious abuse of power...again...
This guy made an art project capturing images of people at Apple stores with the stores permission using the stores computers. The secret service just came and arrested him for the photography!
http://hackaday.com/2011/07/07/smile-your-face-is-on-the-internet/#comments
http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/07/7037427-apple-store-spycam-artist-says-that-secret-service-busted-him
It appears they arrested him for unauthorized access and use of the store computers. Not the same thing at all as being arrested for photography.
What recourse does this guy have?
Isn't filing a false report a crime in NH? Did the judge lie in giving formal statements to police? Didn't someone just get four years for doing exactly that? I don't think the judge would have a defence that they had a reasonable belief they were being threatened...
So criminal recourse is certainly possible. I think a civil suit would be difficult to say the least; it's very very hard to sue a judge for anything they do as a judge.
Also, the sequence of events is subject to a disturbing interpretation:
1. Judge brings false charges and has individual arrested and charged
2. Video evidence shows judge lied and charges were false
3. Judge responds by immediately banning use of video cameras in courthouse...
I don't have much patience with these so-called 'free state' people; sounds like they've been making PITAs of themselves, including in the courthouse. But last time I checked being a PITA wasn't a crime...
After tossing this with the founder of Guerrilla Lawfare, his recourse might be better found by charging the Bailiff for the wrongful arrest.
At some point, that Bailiff would have had to have written out a report. By blindly obeying his master (the Judge) he violated his oath to the constitutions. The bailiff swore an oath to the constitution, not to the judge.
Bailiffs as well as cops need to be held accountable to we the people - whenever they shaft the people.
The guy should have released the suspect when he realized the arrest lacked probable cause.
>>1. No cameras or audio equipment may be used
>>at any time in the court's lobby or anywhere
>>in the public area of the court's leased premises;
Oops; no exemption for themselves. I hope there's no courthouse owned video/security cameras in the building. If so, time to arrest the building/city manager.
I caught that too. But I bet nobody will be jailed for violating a court order, unless they're serfs. Nobles have rights, after all.
To be fair, in Canada, cameras are not allowed in court (except in the Supreme Court), and the fact that they are in the US make the US courts seem like circuses, which is precisely the reason they are banned.
This didn't happen in court. It happened in a stairwell.
One of the reasons in California we elect judges is so that we can throw idiots like Burke out of office. Are their similar provision New Hampshire?
From watching the video I get the distinct impression the judge had this all preplanned. Or do bailiffs normally just hang around stairwells waiting for something to do?
Bailiffs hang around the stairwells because there's no donut shop in the "leased" courthouse.
I'm sure the judge was genuinly afraid.
It is only natural for a tyrant to fear reciprocity from those he has been abusing.
Just another egregious abuse against democracy that will flush down the worm hole of nothingness. After today the story will be gone.
At least you could of shown some balls by initiating a multi-million dollar suit for false imprisonment and placed the judge under citizen arrest for corruption and abuse of power, but alas,
some think a story on the internet solves all.
I didn't see Mueller actually say anything. Anybody can add their voice to the tape after you have already shot the video.
What an absolutely absurd comment.
are you dense or does "reasonable doubt" have no meaning in your vocabulary?
Maybe the district attorney added the voice to the video while Mueller was locked up in jail because he was the one that had the camera after it was confiscated.
Only in America. Anyone can grow up to become a judge. Even a scumbag like Burke. "The rule of law" becomes "the rule of liars."
This "judge" should be hanged in the town square.
How do you spell impeachment, again?
I disagree --- you can't just follow a judge around inside the court house and vehemently disagree with a decision that he just made. It certainly can be construed as threatening. This wasn't an example of someone being arrested for photography; it was an example of someone being arrested for threatening a judge and attempting to compromise the legal system. Judges make decisions with serious consequences for people, and many judges have been threatened with violence and intimidated. The judge's reaction here is perfectly reasonable.
The only problem with your argument is that he was not threatened in any way.HE was simply asked questions. This is this, this isn't that. What happened in any other situation has nothing at all to do with this indecent. It is totally irrelevant. The Judges reaction to a peaceful encounter with a citizen asking questions was not at all reasonable. When he had time to sit and think about it, he still chose to keep a man locked in a cage.
"...perfectly reasonable" ???
Did you watch this video? Even without all the background, most sane people watching this would agree the judge was way out of line.
If he didn't want to talk about it, he should have just said 'no comment' or 'I'm not going to talk about this now.'
Ademo sounded rather polite and calm and from what we see on the recording, wasn't jumping in this judges face.
Go watch the video where they try to serve the judge with a legal subpoena.
This moron needs to lose his job and face criminal proceedings for false statements and imprisonment.
lets see (threatened):
Websters:
:to announce as intended or possible
: to cause to feel insecure or anxious
lets see (construe(d):
: to understand or explain the sense or intention of usually in a particular way or with respect to a given set of circumstances
This does not pass any type of test...
If there was a tiny iota of credibility to that charge, it would have stuck! The fact that the case was dismissed is quite telling.
Sam L says "The judge's reaction here is perfectly reasonable."
Oddly enough, the DA said differently...
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable".
A camera is a pretty peaceful way to expose government corruption such as false arrest.
Banning that, you open up a new can of worms that JFK predicted.
Wise up Judge.
So basically, the judge delivers ordinary, everyday normal justice to a perceived sheeple/lemming/insect, which is simply, inocuously, "Drop pants, bend over, grab ankles and smile real big." Isn't judicial rape anywhere/anytime one of any judge's prerogatives? Judges are supposed to be revered in a free society, after all. But on the tape, from the lips of the perceived sheeple/lemming/insect, I did not hear any obsequiousness like, "Yo' honah, please suh, Oh God save yo' hiness."
The judge was just taking steps to put a bothersome sheeple/lemming/insect in his place. Thus, he employed the awesome state power in the manner of an insecticide sprayed on a pesky bug as a strictly personal matter that is, via longstanding judicial custom and practice, the judge's prerogative, and beside which none other stands. Understandably, the audacity of the sheeple/lemming/insect in this case was unbearable to the judge/bailiffs. This is especially so in a free country where all sheeple/lemming/insects should voluntarily bow down respectfully just to acknowledge an abiding inferiority in the presence of the mighty on the earth such as judges, policemen, county clerks, bailiffs, politicians, courthouse janitors, and the like.
Who does the uppity sheeple/lemming think he is, anyway? He behaves as though he assumes he has his own human rights and lives in a free country. Ask any cop with a taser in his hand about that fallacy.
I read an article a couple of weeks ago about a father who committed suicide by setting himself on fire in front of the Keene, NH courthouse. Is this the same courthouse? Is this the same judge?
Don't know if it's the same judge, but it appears to be the same court. No wonder people find themselves at their wits end. I highly recommend reading the last statement by the guy that burned himself. It was eye-opening and I learned about the "second set of books." Anyone who has ever attempted to find justice within our system will identify with that label.
http://m.sentinelsource.com/mobile/news/local/last-statement-sent-to-sen...
http://www.thedailyholden.com/Articles-c-2011-06-17-78443.113122-Holden-...
After sleeping on this, I have to hold up my hand and call bullshit. Accosting someone in their workplace while videotaping (for undisclosed reasons), aggressively questioning him/her, following him/her up a flight of stairs, can be pretty intimidating. Perhaps it would pass the legal test for stalking in some jurisdictions. Claiming "he wasn't threatened" is naive at best -- if I accost you somewhere public and follow you, I don't get to determine how YOU feel about it. If you're a 4'10' petite woman, caught unawares, my questioning could certainly be intimidating or threatening. You simply don't get to vote on how another feels about your actions.
Sure, his Honor might've just said, "I don't want to comment right now," or "Shut the camera off, I'm not comfortable giving you a on-camera comment in the stairway as I'm walking to work," or "make an appointment with my secretary, I'd be happy to explain it to you on-camera with a little preparation." But ... get this straight ... there's no obligation that he give an on-camera interview without warning is there?
In this case, the judge may've known his rights more than we give him credit for. If he'd responded or engaged in conversation, he might not be able to make a case that he felt intimidated or threatened. By saying nothing, doing nothing, he let our intrepid prankster cease of his own accord, or just keep it up.
Just the other night I saw a similar incident, when Frontline producer Lowell Bergman (yes, that Lowell Bergman from THE INSIDER) followed Dr. Paul McGarry down the street for the documentary POST MORTEM. He identifies himself. He identifies that he's been trying to talk to the guy. He asks if the man would be willing to talk to him (camera rolling). But after a dozen or so steps, they let me walk off. Bergman and his cameraman don't chase him down or harass him.
The other video of Carlos trying to enter the courthouse with a camera recording is another good example of civic restraint. He asks why he has to turn off the camera a few times. He doesn't try to force entry, or evade the authorities. He engages in calm conversation. He finally steps outside. Point proven, but without causing a major disruption or nuisance.
Creating a disruption, nuisance, interfering with regular business of a public building, all could be determined to be disorderly conduct, and doesn't really prove the point as effectively. I can appreciate the motives of the NH videographers who are trying to assert their rights, but from this and the other videos, it sure looks like they're pressing the issue a bit far, with staged incidents that are designed to portray a biased view of the situation. Doesn't really earn my sympathy.
I'm sure I'll get flamed here. It's just my perspective, and IANAL. ,:)
Post new comment