I Was Kicked Out of a Mitt Romney Event and Arrested on January 9. I’m Still Trying to Figure Out Why.

by Matt B. on January 10, 2012

[Update: coverage roundup.]

[Update: my letter to the Romney campaign.]

[Update: more reflections.]

I’d been in New Hampshire for the past several days to follow the campaign and see some of the candidates in-person. Yesterday morning, I was chatting up a Romney campaign staffer before an event at the Gilchrist Manufacturing Company in Hudson, NH, when a police officer approached. Sir, we have to ask you to leave the premises.

“Sir, is this about my backpack? I’d be happy to show you – there’s nothing dangerous in there.”

“No, sir – we’ll explain it to you outside.”

I gathered my things and walked past a group of citizens and press, humiliated and confused.

Outside, the officer said, “Sir, the campaign has identified you as someone who was at a protest at Romney’s office in Manchester.”

Now I was really confused. Protest? I didn’t even know there had been protests at Romney’s headquarters, and if there had been, I certainly hadn’t been at them. (Later, after I got out of jail, I looked on the web; I still haven’t found any news stories about protests at Romney’s offices here, though Occupy protesters have attended several of his events.)

I explained to the officer – his name was Lamarche, and his partner’s was Ducie – that there must have been some misunderstanding. Could I speak to someone from the campaign to clear this up? No. I’d have to leave immediately.

I asked about his authority to remove me. “We’re working for the Romney campaign,” he said. I asked if he was on-duty; he said he was. My confusion deepened. So was he working for the town of Hudson today, or for the campaign? “Both.” (Later, I think I got it straight: the campaign hired the police for the day, sort of like a private security detail.)

I thought about Romney’s campaign staff inside. They had mistaken me for someone else, and that was enough – I was out. They had imagined trouble and whisked it away, out of sight. And the police – my police – were being paid to do their bidding.

I asked again to speak to someone from the campaign or the company who owned the plant. He refused; the company had delegated authority to the campaign, and the campaign had authorized the police to remove anyone the campaign didn’t want present. But wouldn’t it be simple for me to just talk to someone and explain the mistake? Too many people around, the cop said. Apparently it would be too big a bother. I either had to leave the company’s property or face charges for criminal trespass.

My reason-seeking brain couldn’t take in what was happening. I had come here to be a part of the primary process, to see it first-hand and to write about it.

My reason-seeking brain couldn’t take in what was happening. I had come here to be a part of the primary process, to see it first-hand and to write about it. I had already attended events with Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, and Newt Gingrich (and I would later see Ron Paul and Buddy Roemer). In each of these instances, I had come to understand the candidates and their views better and had developed greater respect for each of them. And I fully expected that the same would happen with Romney.

In other words, I came because I was curious, and on my own nickel. I wasn’t part of any protest group or in anyone’s employ. Couldn’t we just have a reasonable conversation and figure this out?

I asked another question or two, and the cop had had enough: “You’re under arrest.” He took my things, handcuffed me behind my back, searched me, and tucked me into a nearby cruiser. A few minutes later, an officer removed me from the cruiser and had me lean up against another police car and spread my legs for a second search. Two or three TV crews had their cameras trained on us; I felt ashamed in a wholly unfamiliar way. I wanted to look directly at the cameras and explain what had happened, but I feared the police officers’ reaction.

I was tucked into the second cruiser and driven away. The camera crews continued filming. A protester – oh, did I mention that there was an actual protest there? – yelled, “Free the prisoner.”

***

The Holding Cell at the Hudson P.D.

The holding cell at the Hudson Police Department. (I was allowed to use my own phone to make phone calls, and I snapped these pictures as well.)

At the police station, I was put in a cage and asked to remove my shoes, belt, and sweatshirt. An officer named Manni and another officer processed my paperwork. As they did so, they told me not to go back to “that area” when I was released. I indicated that I understood I wasn’t permitted to be on the company’s land or facilities, but surely I could go back to the street if I so chose – it’s public property, after all. Don’t go back to that area, they said. If you go back, you might cause a disturbance or a riot, and you could be arrested for disorderly conduct.

I tried to keep calm and ask even-keeled questions. Were they telling me I wasn’t even permitted in the street near the facility? And if so, on what grounds? I thought: I’m not planning on starting any trouble, but if I wanted to go and express myself by talking to the media about what had happened, wasn’t that my right?

And then the following exchange took place. I began to ask, “If I express my First Amendment freedoms –

And Officer Manni interjected, “You’ll probably be arrested.”

I couldn’t locate words. (I’m not entirely sure he said ‘probably,’ but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.)

It was clear to me that the two officers had no interest in discussing what the law actually said, or what my rights actually entailed. I was paperwork, and they wanted to get it over with. I kept asking questions, and at one point, one of them opened up the New Hampshire legal code and read me the definition of disorderly conduct. He read the words dully, as if they were just syllables, with no interest at all in what they meant.

I asked the officer if he could help me connect what he’d just read with my situation and understand why it would be a problem to return to the street outside the event. He told me that I might return and say things that “aren’t what others think.” [It might have been "aren't what others believe" or "aren't what most others believe." I'm not 100% sure.] It was incredible – he actually paused before he said those words, as if searching for something politically correct to say. I don’t think he realized that the words he found had so little to do with the letter and spirit of our laws and Constitution.

***

My cell was down the hall and to the left.

My cell was down the hall and to the left.

Nearly four hours after all of this began – after time spent in an actual cell, and then even more time back in the cage – the bail bondsman arrived. He set up an arraignment date, drove me to an ATM so I could extract the $40 bond, and dropped me off at my car. And as he let me out of the car, he repeated the officers’ advice from earlier: “Don’t hang around this area.” Apparently, even hours after the event had ended, the Romney campaign and the local police were still present, nibbling away at my freedoms.

  • Chasinwakes

    As far as the Police go’s—
    I was under the impression that They( City Police) are to NOT-to-”double Their Standards -For hire” They are there as a Presents only “to keep Potential Probability of Eruptions from Onlookers-from happening” They are not the Employees of the Champagne. They (the police) are to follow city Codes and local Laws as described in the Statutes –so written.(Hence- Law office-no longer a Peace office) The definition is clear—(to me –after having read) you did not seem to Be a threat any anyway –other than??  “By” Being profiled by Campaign staff. In addition to that—doesn’t the Campaign budget allow for private security staff?  At which point, it is their responsibility to Relocate you to a public area – away from the Event? As far as the ACLU goes- how do you believe they could be of any assistance “after the Fact?” Its water over the bridge now. I would say “get an attorney and Sue for wrongful arrest. You may be able to put your focus on the particular officers in question—“for having wrongfully arrested you on unsustainable grounds”” You will now have this arrest on your “Permanent Record” for life. Should all ells fail—you need to get this expunged and sealed as though “from having ever happened.

     
     
     

  • Chasinwakes

    As far as the Police go’s—
    I was under the impression that They( City Police) are to NOT-to-”double Their Standards -For hire” They are there as a Presents only “to keep Potential Probability of Eruptions from Onlookers-from happening” They are not the Employees of the Champagne. They (the police) are to follow city Codes and local Laws as described in the Statutes –so written.(Hence- Law office-no longer a Peace office) The definition is clear—(to me –after having read) you did not seem to Be a threat any anyway –other than??  “By” Being profiled by Campaign staff. In addition to that—doesn’t the Campaign budget allow for private security staff?  At which point, it is their responsibility to Relocate you to a public area – away from the Event? As far as the ACLU goes- how do you believe they could be of any assistance “after the Fact?” Its water over the bridge now. I would say “get an attorney and Sue for wrongful arrest. You may be able to put your focus on the particular officers in question—“for having wrongfully arrested you on unsustainable grounds”” You will now have this arrest on your “Permanent Record” for life. Should all ells fail—you need to get this expunged and sealed as though “from having ever happened.

  • Mom

    I appreciate the way you referred to your exchange with the officer. So often in the moment we don’t get the exact words. But you made it very clear you were being arrested for exercising your First Amendment rights. I do hope your voice is heard & your rights addressed.

  • Chasinwakes

    I here ya. But I was told and found –that City Police Officers –are to be UN bias- and to follow the Law of the City to which they are employed. So—Question– How does Arresting someone for something they have not done??   Basically, Matt was arrested – on a Probability that he may be a disturbance???  That Is profiling on speculation; that he “May” cause a disturbance. No actual Law was broken? Hence the right to sue –On the grounds of “wrongful Imprisonment- or Detainment” –“false arrest”–  the Point——-HAS COMMITED the act of  ?????A police officer, or a person authorized by a jurisdiction’s police powers act, may arrest anyone whom the officer has reasonable and probable cause to believe has committed any criminal offence.

  • Skipskatte

    The trouble, Pat, is the pre-emptive nature of the action. The TPM aspect doesn’t come into play until actually underway. Let’s use your drum circle example. Can you be arrested under the TPM restrictions for simply having drums in your possession at 3am in a residential area because you MIGHT play them at some point at a protest that isn’t currently underway?   

  • Skipskatte

    I personally have a major issue with cops being both on-duty and privately employed. It is a substantial conflict of interest. 

  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    Thanks for your concern, Chasinwakes. I’m still sifting through the legal ramifications now…

  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    Thanks very much, “Mom”. (It feels weird to write that, since you aren’t my mom :)  I’m hoping lots of folks will pay attention to this story – not because of me, but because of what it means.

  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    I’m not sure the officers were both on private and public duty – I think the campaign had hired them through the town. The arresting officer actually talks about it here: 

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/arresting-officer-at-romney-event-says-student-ha

    Still, it is disturbing to me that a campaign staffer would even want to exclude people in this way – preemptively (and in my case, because of imaginary affiliations).

  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    I hear you, pdross. If that’s the case in this jurisdiction, though, I would have appreciated the officers explaining that to me. They refused to do so.

  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    Thanks John. Couple thoughts: first, I wasn’t protesting, nor was I planning to do so. 

    More importantly, though, this doesn’t seem to me to be a private event. Private property – yes, definitely. But when a candidate invites the citizens to come from miles around and hear him speak about public issues – and when those citizens go out of their way to take him up on it – it seems to me that there’s a certain kind of respect and decency that’s required. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1220775270 Christopher King

    Matt OMG… You need to sue them, I am a former State Attorney and let me open your eyes a bit with these videos and related information about how NH GOP operates:

    Mitt Romney, Ryan Williams and Kelly Ayotte all hate open gov’t they oppressed Matt Bieber. http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2012/01/kingcast-schools-matt-bieber-on-mitt.html

  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    Thanks for the support, Christopher. I’m new to all this, but I’m thinking conversation and – if necessary – civil disobedience could go a longer way toward creating the good will we need to change this political culture.

  • Guest

    The charge was criminal trespass, he didn’t leave when he was asked to and had several opportunities to leave without and issue…

  • Vandoctor78

    You are being willfully obtuse. Yes, it was mistaken identity, and an error, but when you are told to leave private property, you leave. Does Harvard not have the same right to tell people to leave their campus?

    I would also like you to explain why the Huntington Post version of your account includes a comment about how you had attended other events and developed greater respect for other candidates, but I don’t see that section here on your blog, and more importantly, I see an article on your blog from January 8th titled “I’m Pretty Sure Rick Santorum Lied to My Face on Friday”. That contradiction shows you are either being disengenuous or forgetful. I’ve tried to find a more charitable explanation because “forgetful” now throws your whole story into doubt. So seriously, explain why the article versions are different and what you mean by having greater respect for someone you called a liar.

    Free speech and assembly need to be fought for, but not by muddying the battle with poorly-reasoned claims of injustice. It just makes our side look dumb.

  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    Thanks Vandoctor. You may well be right about the mistaken identity – in fact, I hope you are. If that’s true, then it seems pretty straightforward for the Romney campaign to explain that that’s what took place.

    W/r/t the private property argument, I agree that it was private property. But I also think it was a public event – a presidential candidate had invited the public to come and hear him speak about issues of public import. We had taken him up on that offer, and as such, I think we had earned the right to expect some basic, decent treatment. A mere conversation with a staffer could have cleared this up.

    As for the discrepancy between the HuffPo article and what appears here: the HuffPo version was written more recently, and unfortunately, I’m having a bit of a problem on the back end of my own website and haven’t been able to log in to make changes. My developer is at work on that, and as soon as I can get access, I’ll make sure the versions are parallel. 

    As for the Rick Santorum article, a couple thoughts. First, I deliberately didn’t call him a “liar” – I suggested that he may have lied in that instance (as lots of politicians do). I wasn’t trying to impugn his whole character. I was trying to press him on what appears to be a lie that he has told about a particular issue.) More generally, though, I learned quite a lot about his views on the economy, and about the roots of his views in his own experience. Particularly in the left media, Santorum is often caricatured, so it was important for me to go see him in person and get a sense for the man himself. And while I think he’s wrong on sexuality-related issues, there were plenty of other things he had to say that made some sense to me. I also gained a kind of respect for his willingness to put him through this often-thankless process.

  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    Thanks Vandoctor. You may well be right about the mistaken identity – in fact, I hope you are. If that’s true, then it seems pretty straightforward for the Romney campaign to explain that that’s what took place.

    W/r/t the private property argument, I agree that it was private property. But I also think it was a public event – a presidential candidate had invited the public to come and hear him speak about issues of public import. We had taken him up on that offer, and as such, I think we had earned the right to expect some basic, decent treatment. A mere conversation with a staffer could have cleared this up.

    As for the discrepancy between the HuffPo article and what appears here: the HuffPo version was written more recently, and unfortunately, I’m having a bit of a problem on the back end of my own website and haven’t been able to log in to make changes. My developer is at work on that, and as soon as I can get access, I’ll make sure the versions are parallel. 

    As for the Rick Santorum article, a couple thoughts. First, I deliberately didn’t call him a “liar” – I suggested that he may have lied in that instance (as lots of politicians do). I wasn’t trying to impugn his whole character. I was trying to press him on what appears to be a lie that he has told about a particular issue.) More generally, though, I learned quite a lot about his views on the economy, and about the roots of his views in his own experience. Particularly in the left media, Santorum is often caricatured, so it was important for me to go see him in person and get a sense for the man himself. And while I think he’s wrong on sexuality-related issues, there were plenty of other things he had to say that made some sense to me. I also gained a kind of respect for his willingness to put him through this often-thankless process.

  • Vandoctor78

    Thank you for that response.

    The following is going to come across as very ad hominem, which is perhaps unavoidable. But despite conventional wisdom, ad hominem’s are not universally considered to be unwarranted:

    “Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue [12] , as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject’s words.”
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad hominem

    I think ensuring free assembly and being vigilant against police misconduct are critically important. That’s what attracted me to your post in the first place: I get my motivation to fight for these issues after being enraged by stories, and anticipated yours would be another one to fuel my passion. This liberal democrat left disappointed.

    We need to focus on cases where the injustices are clear. Cases that are less so are a distraction and only aid the opposition. I can empathize with how you can’t see that you have no legal defense because you are in the middle of this crisis, and so mentally you might not be all there as demonstrated by posting to HuffPost before making sure it would be consistent with the original. Human mistake for sure, but you are no rookie to blogging.

    I can now understand why you were arrested. You were told why you were asked to leave. You naturally disagreed because you couldn’t imagine you had done anything wrong and then asked the cop to help you mediate with the Romney folks. That is not his job. And it is not the job of the Romney campaign to never make a mistake. People on private property have the right to make complete idiots of themselves. You do not have the right to expect to be treated decently at what is a private function. That’s just your opinion. It’s like me saying that because you have a blog and have been exchanging messages with me, if your house’s front door is open, I can walk inside so we can carry on this conversation together I mean, it would only be decent of you to let me in, right? Of course not. And this was, as you know, a *campaign* event, not a seminar. They are organized for a specific reason, and they invite the public to attend. But the public is not invited to come and tell them how to run their show, telling them how they should behave and what *you* think is decent, or tell the cops to be on-site mediators or emissaries or judges on whether the campaign is right to restrict access to anyone.

    Another way to know this was private was that the the cop made it clear he was hired to be security for the private event. That should have been another tip off. Instead, by your count, you asked between 7 and 8 questions total. It seems that like at the Santorum event, you have a habit of asking the same question more than once. I just have this sinking feeling, that though you write eloquently, the actual live interaction with the cop may not have looked so smooth, with you asking the same question more than once, appearing to challenge the officers logic, just being unresponsive to their order.

    Some would argue the cops acted impulsively, others would say they were patient as measured on a general scale, and especially patient considering the circumstances. But that’s a grey area and has nothing to do with freedom of speech and assembly. It’s a due process issue, and I’m just not sure the ACLU would even fight for you. My opinion, like I implied from the start, it’s not the cops’ job to provide you a lengthy seminar. You said you agree it is private property. Then do the decent thing and respect that. Otherwise that little twinge of pain you feel in the back of your mind will be cognitive dissonance calling out to be resolved.

    As for Santorum, to me, you’re really just digging a hole for yourself there I’m afraid. Go back and read what you wrote. You found his spin “galling”. That’s not just some minor quibble about one issue. It reads much broader than that and you know it. Yes, you say it won’t be the key reason anyone won’t vote against him, but then you say people shouldn’t forget, which the casual reader could consider an endorsement to make it a key issue. I mean, its the only thing you write about in that piece. None of the complimentary things you just mentioned are in there.

    So why is this internet stranger exerting all this effort? We need good hearts in this fight. You clearly have one. You need to strengthen your mind some more though, because if I’m likely on your side on the broader issues and this is how I critique your logic, imagine what your enemies would do. You would be as easy a target to them as some think Santorum is.

    Best of luck in court. An arrest record isn’t a career-ender in America. Chin up.

  • Vandoctor78

    Thank you for that response.

    The following is going to come across as very ad hominem, which is perhaps unavoidable. But despite conventional wisdom, ad hominem’s are not universally considered to be unwarranted:

    “Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue [12] , as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject’s words.”
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad hominem

    I think ensuring free assembly and being vigilant against police misconduct are critically important. That’s what attracted me to your post in the first place: I get my motivation to fight for these issues after being enraged by stories, and anticipated yours would be another one to fuel my passion. This liberal democrat left disappointed.

    We need to focus on cases where the injustices are clear. Cases that are less so are a distraction and only aid the opposition. I can empathize with how you can’t see that you have no legal defense because you are in the middle of this crisis, and so mentally you might not be all there as demonstrated by posting to HuffPost before making sure it would be consistent with the original. Human mistake for sure, but you are no rookie to blogging.

    I can now understand why you were arrested. You were told why you were asked to leave. You naturally disagreed because you couldn’t imagine you had done anything wrong and then asked the cop to help you mediate with the Romney folks. That is not his job. And it is not the job of the Romney campaign to never make a mistake. People on private property have the right to make complete idiots of themselves. You do not have the right to expect to be treated decently at what is a private function. That’s just your opinion. It’s like me saying that because you have a blog and have been exchanging messages with me, if your house’s front door is open, I can walk inside so we can carry on this conversation together I mean, it would only be decent of you to let me in, right? Of course not. And this was, as you know, a *campaign* event, not a seminar. They are organized for a specific reason, and they invite the public to attend. But the public is not invited to come and tell them how to run their show, telling them how they should behave and what *you* think is decent, or tell the cops to be on-site mediators or emissaries or judges on whether the campaign is right to restrict access to anyone.

    Another way to know this was private was that the the cop made it clear he was hired to be security for the private event. That should have been another tip off. Instead, by your count, you asked between 7 and 8 questions total. It seems that like at the Santorum event, you have a habit of asking the same question more than once. I just have this sinking feeling, that though you write eloquently, the actual live interaction with the cop may not have looked so smooth, with you asking the same question more than once, appearing to challenge the officers logic, just being unresponsive to their order.

    Some would argue the cops acted impulsively, others would say they were patient as measured on a general scale, and especially patient considering the circumstances. But that’s a grey area and has nothing to do with freedom of speech and assembly. It’s a due process issue, and I’m just not sure the ACLU would even fight for you. My opinion, like I implied from the start, it’s not the cops’ job to provide you a lengthy seminar. You said you agree it is private property. Then do the decent thing and respect that. Otherwise that little twinge of pain you feel in the back of your mind will be cognitive dissonance calling out to be resolved.

    As for Santorum, to me, you’re really just digging a hole for yourself there I’m afraid. Go back and read what you wrote. You found his spin “galling”. That’s not just some minor quibble about one issue. It reads much broader than that and you know it. Yes, you say it won’t be the key reason anyone won’t vote against him, but then you say people shouldn’t forget, which the casual reader could consider an endorsement to make it a key issue. I mean, its the only thing you write about in that piece. None of the complimentary things you just mentioned are in there.

    So why is this internet stranger exerting all this effort? We need good hearts in this fight. You clearly have one. You need to strengthen your mind some more though, because if I’m likely on your side on the broader issues and this is how I critique your logic, imagine what your enemies would do. You would be as easy a target to them as some think Santorum is.

    Best of luck in court. An arrest record isn’t a career-ender in America. Chin up.

  • Vandoctor78

    I live in SF. I would love to see the Berkely law that gives a private citizen the right to override private property rights based on free speech grounds. Tell me, and I will be breaking into your house daily to share with you how much I agree.

  • Zoonaward

    WOW. Outrageous .Another reason not to vote for Romney?

  • Zoonaward

    Habeus Corpus is dead.

  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    Thanks Vandoctor. We might just disagree about the importance of the private property point. My sense is that while there may be a legal point, there is a larger and more important ethical point. A candidate for public office hosted a public event and invited citizen participation – and thereby created a public space. I took his campaign up on the offer, and I deserved more than to be tossed out without explanation. This wasn’t a dinner party with Romney and his three best friends.

    As for the question of purity: I realize that people will always find a way to question one’s motives. We’re complicated people, and if someone is looking for something to justify their cynicism, they’ll probably find it. But we don’t have to live in pre-emptive anticipation of those kinds of attacks. We can be our fully complicated selves, unsure about some things and passionate about others. Yes, I think Santorum is wrong about sexuality. Yes, I admire other things about him. And no, my goal in traveling to NH wasn’t to fire off a bunch of articles about how all Republicans are jerks – because I don’t think they are. 

    To my mind, this is the core of the issue: can we trust one another not to always have some agenda – to actually be open to listening and learning? Can we trust that it’s possible to be critical of one thing about a person without wanting to undermine that person through and through?

    I make mistakes, and you’re right – I could have been smoother about some of this. I’ll do my best to avoid mistakes going forward. But I hope that those mistakes don’t have to undermine whatever value you’ve found here.

  • Cbruce

    The campaign were well within their rights to have you removed in these circumstances (we have to respect other’s rights as well as they must respect ours). It does not; however, absolve Romney’s minions of dickishness. “Don’t taze me , Bro” comes to mind remembering Kerry’s campaign.

  • Vandoctor78

    I am 100% of everything you just wrote. The Romney campain at best acted poorly and reflexively, and also hope they learn from their mistake just as you have from yours. Pursuing that line is important and worthwhile. I hope they apologize, and come to your defense somehow to ameliorate whatever legal issues you now face. Best of luck.

  • Guest

    Incredible, and I mean that in the most respectful way. This has been the most un-biased piece of opinion in relation to this post. And I couldn’t have said it better or agree more…

  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    Thanks, Vandoctor.

  • Bob

    how is it you can be so “naive” and informed all at the same time?

  • Guest

    He was asked to leave, told to leave and refused to obey an officers order. No rights were violated as he was given information (the only information the officers had at the time) and repeatedly told to leave. When he refused AFTER being told he would be considered trespassing he continued to stay on the property. I am in favor of needing to know what the problem is when you ask, but the cops dont need to be standing there babysitting someone who can not do as asked or told.

  • http://twitter.com/gobulls11 michael

    This already happened at an Obama event all across America. The signing of NDAA.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1303680144 Jessi Wood

    I haven’t in idea what the contracts laws for officers in NH are like. In the university town I live in (in Missouri) off duty officers can be contracted out to provide security for events on private property or events held in public areas can request extra on duty officers to be present to upload city laws. Either way, assuming Matt was being respectful throughout the entire process there was no need to the initial arrest and threats of arrest for speaking to the media are unacceptable if the interview was to be conducted off of the private property.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1303680144 Jessi Wood

    I agree, but it is that relationship between the media and politics that really make a mockery of good journalism (broadcast or print). News should be news and not a battle between political parties.

  • Rc15ct

    He wouldn’t be violating private property laws, the streets and sidewalks are public property. Didn’t you just read this thing or not? Lol

  • Rc15ct

    I got tired of reading responses so I’m just going to post this and let you know what I got out of it. Many people commenting here keep saying you were arrested for bein violated for trespassing because when the police took you outside and told you to leave and you didn’t, and questioned them on the reasoning for your removal. If the police took you outside away from the event, you were no longer on the private property of the event, therefore the police had no right to arrest you for questioning them. If the charges were that you were harassing them with the questions, they would have been legally able to arrest you, but for tresspassing they were in the wrong. There was no disorderly conduct of you were away from the event when the questioning took place.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1220775270 Christopher King

    I find it interesting that my comment no longer appears here even though there is probably no First Amendment fighter with more experience dealing with First Amendment freedoms in NH than I have… and I am currently suing NH Senator Kelly Ayotte and the GOP for similar issues. 

    http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2012/01/kingcast-schools-matt-bieber-on-mitt.html

    I mean sure I saved the image and all, but it’s weird to me. Anyway, Good Luck whatever you decide to do.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1220775270 Christopher King
  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    Thanks, Jessi.

  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    Thanks, Rc. Unfortunately, we were still on company property when we stepped outside the building.

  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    Christopher, are you talking about this website? It’s possible that your comment got stuck in a Disqus moderation filter or something – I’m still learning the system – but I’m certainly not trying to exclude you. I appreciate your contributions!

  • http://profiles.google.com/ac.missias AC Missias

    I guess this is only surprising because you’re (apparently) a Republican and not a protester.  The same sort of thing has been happening for a while now to people trying to exercise the same rights but not promising to support one of the GOP candidates…

  • http://twitter.com/Kishin_D KishinD

    “Your freedom or your life!”

    Welcome to the police state.  This is not an isolated incident, this happens nationwide.  So I ask you:

    Now that you know that this government and its enforcers – local, state, and federal – does not consider themselves bound by the Constitution, now that you’re aware that this government is illegitimate… what are you going to do about it?

    Frivolously detained, your fingerprints (or handprints) are now in a government database.  At any time, based on accusation alone, you can be detained indefinitely.  There will be no repercussions for the officers, I promise you.  Cops literally get away with murder.  So, what now?  

  • Dylan

    Wow. A. Removing you from the property is permissible. But it is a blatant conflict of interest for the police to both be working private security and representing the law in the same manner. It is also impossible for them to justify keeping you from the public street around the event, barring an obvious intent to cause a riot. At the point where you were a. not actually a former protester, b. not threatening violence, and c. attempting to express dissatisfaction with your treatment by the law, their actions were absurd. 
    It ticks me off that this isn’t a huge deal.

  • Roadtoad

    A good reason to not vote for Romney.

  • Mwalker

    I applaud you and your courage to speak, and inspire continued discusion of this travesty that is only certain to grow unless more people have the courage to challange incomprehensible, illogical, and illeagal behavior such as has happened to you. You chose to speak out, mst importantly, with reason, first to the police and now to the public. We, and our rights, will only survive if others follow your example.

  • http://thewheatandchaff.com Matt Bieber

    Thanks very much, Mwalker.

  • Curious in Wisconsin

    WOW..JUST CRAZY !! guilty until proven innocent. ? .but not even given the chance to prove the innocence.  doesn’t sound very American to me..

  • Bumblebee911

    My question is who really cares about you or what hAppenz to you ? Sounds like a really minor inconvenience you faced

  • Bumblebee911

    Nice holding cell tho

  • Bumblebee911

    Maybe ur just a whiner… I wonder about all the bums n dumb junkie chicks in Harvard sq that would get arrested just to be in that holding cell rite now.

    Some younger ppl in occupy seem to forget there is more to do
    In America than defend the freedom of privileged classes w regular Internet access….

  • Guest1

    The issue was a different location. So the current location could not have authorized the Romney campaign to have you arrested. So you must contact Gilcrest Co.

    And also contact the other location. The proof you you not engaging in bad contact at the other locations, is that you were not arrested therer.

Previous post:

Next post: