Before getting into this case, I think I will show what an actual police warrant for facebook information may seek for information.
You'll notice something interesting on enumeration 45. Anything added to "political views" section of the about section of the account timeline. there are other interesting things the police are looking for: His gender[23]. and his searches on facebook (so be careful what pages you view on facebook-not even safe with tor), and what he has liked off of facebook[31], removed friends[52], ALL FACEBOOK CHATS[10].
The case of Nicolas worthing, of Maine, made my spidey senses tingle earlier this year. A man arrested for stalking a state trooper, but nothing in the news papers indicated that he had ever uttered a threat, and ultimately he plead guilty to 90 days. So I sent an an freedom of access request (basically an open records request) to the district attorney to get the discovery. She refused citing privacy, and officer safety. Not a good time on account that Neighboring Somerset county just had a law enforcement officer killed, the first in some 30 years in that rural state. But It is never a good idea for a district attorney to hide discovery from the public after a case is closed. So I had to file suit. Not too many of the clerks were familiar with the process-and this is the county of the state capital where there ought to be a lot of these requests. To overrule a freedom of access decision, it is called an appeal for some reason. But it is more like a writ of mandamus ordering a state officer to engage in some discretionary act. I can't remember the exact dates, but the attorney general's office (who had to be served also) immediately recognized that I had a right to access the court documents and produced them with a consent order to dismiss the suit. Pretty much that is the last I heard of the suit, I never received paperwork from the court dismissing the case-so I guess it is still open. Rural Maine, where there is no online docket....even in the state capital.
The District attorney, Maeghan Maloney, although she didn't personally handle the criminal case, will go out of her way to get a conviction. Even locking up a victim of domestic violence to force her to testify....at the advise of a domestic violence project. Despite all the alternatives available to throwing a victim in jail which is known for rapes and violence, that is the first thing the domestic violence project advocates. Just think about that ladies, do you really want domestic violence project groups advocating that you the victim could be locked up. I am sure many republicans would love to see 3-4 kavanaugh accusers in jail right now, especially the ones that didn't testify.
Anyways, going back to the Worthing Case. Nicolas was served a summons to appear to court for a charge of harassment. Reportedly a Fowler Roofing (I believe this is their url) contacting him on facebook after being told to stop contacting them, and and somehow he ended up with a charge of harassment. So basically all he had to do was sign some papers and agree to show up to court when summon. State Troopers came to his home to serve some paperwork, and he refused to sign them. Or rather, he refused to sign a summons that was specially served to him by a cop, his former teacher's son, who had been allegedly bullying him since he was a kid when his teacher tried to teach him how to spell. Refusing to comply with a summons is not a valid response. Miss get a conviction at all costs, Nic later reports didn't even prosecute the summons. But that isn't what made him a political prisoner, it was him being arrested and prosecuted for stalking for expressing his opinions about the matter.
In the ancient times jurisdiction was not automatic as it is today. A person had to consent to the jurisdiction of a court in order for the court to have jurisdiction over them and give a pleading. However, there were ways for the court to force someone to recognize the jurisdiction of the court and make a pleading. It was torture, Peine Forte et dure usually holding someone against the floor and applying weights to their chest until they either died or submitted. Maine, however, arrests you for failing to sign a summons, and treats the offense as a [Class E] misdemeanor-which is a petty offense. So better hope the occifers don't lose a signed summons, else itis off to jail you go. There are better ways for the state of maine to handle this. Luckily maine offers jury trials for petty offenses. State v. Sklar, 317 A.2d 160, 165-71 (Me. 1974) (constitutional guarantee of trial by jury extends without qualification to petty offenses) .
Harassment, especially in the courts of chancery, unquestionable is a domain that the courts abuse their powers in-especially when it comes to matters of the first amendment. When it comes to speech, harassment is not an unprotected category of speech. See Suxe v state college area school district "There is no categorical “harassment exception” to the First Amendment's free speech clause. " However, Maine, being a left wing backwards state, doesn't know the difference and leaves the question of harassment, unfortunately, up to the jury or judge. See childs v Ballou It is the fact-finder who properly determines whether a true threat or harassment has occurred. As much as I would have liked to have challenged the state statute, I neither had standing to do so myself, nor could I represent Nicolas Worthing as I am not an attorney and it would be a misdemeanor for me if i tried to represent him. Even if I tried, he would have been released before a decision could likely be made.
According to the state:
During the summons process Sometime back in Jan 2017, nicolas worthing had a little bit to drink. Obviously not in the best state of mind to sign anything, especially with the police and legal forms involved. Nicolas invited them into his house the police claim. Initially trooper Erin james and Eric Verhille left the summons on his table. Nicolas called the state troopers to inquire why they were there at his house. The police went back to his house to re-serve him, only to find nicolas "screaming" for them to get off his property. Nicolas called the dispatcher to say the police were pointing a gun at him [the police of course deny this], and he ran into his house. With neither a warrant nor consent, the police entered into his home to tell him he needed to sign the summons. Nicolas refused to sign the summons.
The failure to sign the form resulted in Nicolas worthing being arrested, and more than likely his daughter also being taken by the police. I can't speak for Maine, but nationally child protection services has a big problem. Since the Clinton era and the passage of the "safe families act", there is big money to be made for those in the CPS business. Not just that, Anonymous has alleged many CPs organizations to be fronts of pedophilia.
When you and your child are kidnapped because someone called you, obviously something is wrong somewhere. To Nicolas, I suppose that meant his sensie's son was an active participant in a pedophile ring. Supposing that Nicolas was wrong, that would be a matter for a civil tort-not an arrest nor a prior restraint. The cop was mostly interested in a prior restraint. But nonetheless for posts that at best could only fall under the libel category at best, Nic was charges with two counts of stalking.
Nicolas began a campaign of contacting people around Eric Verhille on facebook, including his wife, and parents, and even the sheriff's department who blocked him. Among the statements allegedly made were:
about 3 weeks later to his wife [appears to be Alana verhille]: "Question. Do you ever think your husband being a low-life douchbag arresting a single father of his eight-year old daughter on a summons that is complete bull s^#!. Might affect your life? Have a good night..."
He allegedly contacted Eric mother on or prior to sept 20th 2017 on facebook that read "Your sons a scum bag. Who is no good at his job. That low life broke in to my house, illegal home invasion.....In my opinion that's why there's so many cop shootings, is because of gang members like him. f$&!ing scum bag."
To eric's father [appears to be Gary Verhille], he allegedly wrote in June 2017 "Your sons going to lern...Sorry bout it // You got Good looking grandchildren....school starting soon // Your sons a no good child molester and I'm going to make sure everybody in this community knows what that scumbag is."
As hearsay eric's wide reportedly said nic messaged her father in law [Eric's dad], " You got some cute kids. How would you feel if you had a armed home invasion for no reason?"
Allegedly On November 1rst, Eric's wife reported recieving a facebook message "Not the heck well I guess it's a positive thing that high school student died. at least Eric can't rape her".
Allegedly on January 25th, 2017 post to the sheriff department read "There's a lot of people not happy...hello?...we know your homes..Like your gang like to attack us at...Question. How would your kids feel of people showing up to your house...? Just a question because you douchbags would do it to us....Have a good night."
Again on May 29th2017, another post to the sheriff department read, "Break into my house with no justified reason and there was no reason. Just Ignorance. Why don't you go take out the f[astericks] druggies around. "We can't just break into people's houses." You did it to me c*nt heads! F^%& you low lifes! Most of this recent stuff is because of that no-good low-life Eric verhille. He's a state cop but all you lowlife's are all the same. I guess whatever happens. You had a heads up"
he also allegedly wrote, "be careful you never know what could happen at a safety check".
He reportedly contacted Maine state police Troop D, "in my opinion if someone killed Eric verhille..It would be justified but I know that's just my opinion....I'm just a daddy trying to protect his daughter but with scumbags like you out there...idk..."
Below that is an image of an adult male holding a girls hand (similar to the image below), walking away from the camera, reading, "When they know they're your heart And you know you are their armor And you will destroy anyone who would try to harm her....followed by a thumbs up image.
source picture:pics.me.me/when-they-know-theyre-your-heart-and-you-know-you-34878095.png
source lyrics: Eminem
In yet a comment to the kennebec sheriff's page where he complains about the sheriff trespassing at his smelt camps, Nic Allegedly wrote, "I'm thinking we could do a citizen's arrest for somebody trespassing with a deadly weapon...I believe that's are right...? Isn't it? Followed by "In my opinion a dog is to Serve and Protect but if that dog bites you, it should get a bullet right in the f[astericks] head.. Just my opinion". Followed by a smileyface with a wink.
The Maine department of public safety also allegedly received communications from Nic. "Scum bags do your f&*^ing job arrest at low life verhille for doing an illegal home invasion...Or are you just a gang that the public should rise up against?" and also "Question. Am I able to go do my own citizen's arrest? What's required to do that? Since your game does not want to fallow the law.... and "In my opinion if someone did an armed home invasion, that person should be in jail.. ..." and "And in my oppinion this is why you see the stuff that happens to cops on TV." He goes on to write "cant say I didn't try to talk this out...Whatever happens happens..Just Know I felt threatened for my life and my daughters with criminals breaking into my home"
On april 21rst 2017, he allegedly [do I have to keep saying allegedly?] sent a message to the maine state police saying "You're just a bunch of low-life scumbag gang. I wish I was proud of the police department but no you're low-life. Tel srg. Hood suck my d&^. Ps&* cant even show up. I bet he's a child molester. Sick f&^...Scom bags harass me with a summons that the District Attorney's office didn't want to stick up for. All of you are lazy. Collecting welfare off of te Working man, you pieces of s&^."
Allegedly To sargeant hood, "You're a skum bag. That's no good at our job. You give cops a bad name. you lieing f&^. Don't have the balls to show. Send a pee on ha. You know your summons was Bull s&^. Lol the d.a. didn't een stick up for it you stupid dumb f*&^. I llove how my security cameras caught your officers abusing their power. I go around showing the public. I think that's the way to fight your gang. let the public see what kind of scumbags gang you guys are known for...Scum bags.,/i>
In other post allegedly sent to the kennebec sheriff :
"Do you help [redacted: presumably verhille] rape children? I bet [sargeant] moody holds them down...Scum bags!"
"[redacted: presumably verhille]-he's the one that rapes [redacted] up the a$$. Poor dogs."
"In my opinion there should be a bounty on you scumbags. I love seeing you faggots get killed on TV. In my opinion there should be a lot more of you child molesting gang members dead but that's just my opinion and a lot of others."
"In my opinion a terminally ill person that has little time left should go after your gang. Just an opinion ;-)"
"In my opinion you should all get metal badges. right in your brains and it should be made out of lead but that's just my opinion about you know good baby rapists"
The story reportedly told by Nicolas
Nicolas did waive his miranda rights and spoke to the police. Even though he spelling doesn't suggest he is the brightest person in the world, he quite correctly notes that all Fowler Roofing had to do was block him on facebook. Ergo Facebook is not a captive audience. Although much of his spelling is off, much of the alleged statements are stated as opinions, and tap into the ideas of the golden rule. His spelling should not be grounds to dismiss his intellect. Gary Verhille, when he was teaching Nicolas years ago, tried to help Nicolas with his spelling long ago when Nic was a kid. But there was person who would used to laugh at Nicolas in particular, and that was Eric Verhille-the arresting officer. And Eric was still making fun of Nic's spelling. Nic drunk called the police to see why [Eric] was sent] and the sargeant said he would he personally show up....but sent back Eric. It bothered Nic that the Sargeant would lie to him, and it bothered him more that Eric was on his property, and explicitly told eric to "get the f*&^ off [his] property]", and that Eric had no right to be on his property. He went back and called the sargeant to complain about the lie". The troopers then proceeded to rough Nicolas up. The police proceeded to arrest him. Nic also has a fear that the police will shoot him.
None of Nic's alleged speech was unlawful advocacy, none of it constituted a true threat. At best the occifer could have sought a civil tort for money damages. It may be easy to look down at Nic and say what the law is, but textbook learning isn't understanding what the law is-textbook learning is more just about procedures and popular opinions where elitist can look down at others. He was right, in a way ,when miss do anything to get a conviction didn't prosecute the summons-but that is not how you oppose a court that has issued an unlawful summons; you have to go along with the voodoo rituals. He told Eric Verhille that all Fowler Roofing had to do was block him on facebook, which technically constitutionally speaking was what Fowler Roofing was limited in seeking-and the government had no business charging Nic, and Nic clearly was smarter than Eric in this instance. Verhille was explicitly told of this remedy, and most states allow police officers to recall a warrant or a summons. But instead the choice was made to kidnap Nic and his 8 year old daughter,and break into Nic's home under the guise of perhaps reasonable cause for failing to sign the illegitimate summons. In another words, Eric was continuing to bully and hold Nicolas down. Eric was clearly in the wrong. Nic may have some minor delusions (fearing the police will shoot him, or will do evils things to his daughter) and logarhea and may not know the voodoo of the procedure of law, but most law abiding people don't, and certainly found Eric's conduct to be with malice intent-I would too. But of course, Eric being the police officer gets to pretend to be the victim of a criminal offense while enjoying all sorts of immunity that most people don't have, and gagging all criticism of his lawless use of authority. Even if the warrant for stalking was done by another officer.
In many ways it feels like Americans are being domesticated like animals. Anyone, especially men, who expresses certain ideas or great promise is subject to false allegations to throw them further into the abyss. That we just have to put up with abuse and not say anything or express our feelings, heck we can even be punished with attorney fees for being the victims of a tort and the state gets awarded their immunity even as the courts acknowledge a severe wrong happens but are bounded by a higher court's ruling. There are people who understand that there are limits on what human nature can tolerate. That these limits can be exceeded when force is applied particularly to life, liberty, estate, speech, and family. One doesn't need to be a scholar in the natural law to understand these arcane things, one merely just needs to be a victim of big government. But increasingly society is being discouraged from even talking about these limits, or engaging in prophetic speech or axiomatic speechSee United States v Dillard. Analogously to Dillard, I guess telling a journalism student that if they go to Syria to investigate ISIS that they could be beheaded, that could be construed as a true threat by the 10th circuit. Dillard was a flawed decision, but it was made at the 10th circuit court of appeals-which should scare us all how close the feminist movement is from undermining Watts v United states. Luckily for Dillard, if you can call the cost of a jury trial as a defendant lucky, the jury saw beyond the 10th circuit's BS and found no true threat. People will always say cautionary things as reason, as compassion, as sarcasm, or in the defense of themselves, their posterity, or their fellow countrymen. But if it is an idea that goes against certain schools of thoughts, prepare to be sued or go to jail. Welcome to American, Land of the brave and home of the Free. Where you are more likely to end up in jail than anywhere else in the world-and leading the USA in Arrest is Georgia. When a country arrests people solely for expressing political views, the country has engaged in acts of terrorism and is a state sponsor of terrorism.
The more that this country puts up with abuses like these the greater the resentment, the less our oppressors will know how evil their conduct really are even if they are spelled out in as simple of a form as the golden rule, and eventually the system will buckle. Allowing people to speak their grievances should be encourages (well maybe not to include libel), it gets all to acknowledge that there is a wrong, and allows a society to fix these defects as to create a more perfect union. Locking people up and gagging them for expressing their grievances is just a path towards or maintaining despotism. As justice cooley once said in his time, a treatise on the constitutional limits, and to paraphrase from the well known college free speech case Doe v Michigan (which can get you arrested in Georgia when used in a legal brief in a first amendment case),
[E]ven if speech exceed[s] all the proper bounds of moderation, the consolation must be that the evil likely to spring from the violent discussion will probably be less, and its correction by public sentiment more speedy, than if the terrors of the law were brought to bear to prevent the discussion.
Not bad for an 1868 opinion.
As a final edit before uploading and screenshotting. It seems someone down in south Carolina did have enough of the police, 7 cops shot. The police may not like anyone questioning their authority, the police may not like reminders that they are mortal. But there is an authority that is higher than the courts and the legislature, and that is the authority that comes from God. When man prosecutes his appeal to heaven. Well, we don't know if that authority was God or Satan yet. It's not good say to corner animals, especially ones with guns. America, when it comes to the police state, is just waiting for a John Brown moment.
I noticed in the affidavit the affiant stated there is probable cause, but never actually stated what it is, or where it is stated.
Soooo..... What gives the court authority to proceed? As I understand the court system, juridiction can be challenged at ANY TIME.... Even if you have already been convicted or plead guilty!
there is more to the affidavit, I just put the facebook inquiries up front since most people don't get to see what information the police seek from big brother zucker. I was surprise to see it too, and more so about them waiting to check his chat with everyone and that they wanted to know his politics. The officer's statements on probable cause for the search begins on page 76, and goes on to page 81. The one for his arrest begins on page 7, and goes on to page 15.
http://neophytesoftware.com/steemitfirstamendment/nw.pdf
Many states does allow a person to withdraw a plea. I am pretty sure all states have a writ of habeas corpus [harder for people who plead guilty], and many have procedures for new trials [if they went to trial in the first place]. I am not sure if Nicolas could withdraw his plea.
What gives he courts the authority to proceed is the consent of the governed. Although not really a forgotten term, I don't think many people really think about what it means. Just living, being born into, a country seems to be a substitute for consent to most folks these days. But that obviously hasn't always been the case when governments had to use torture to get the people to willingly consent to be governed.
with that substitution in mind, Basically if the legislature agrees that something is a crime, and the governor or president [as the case may be] agrees [keeping things simple] then the court has jurisdiction over an accused person with probable cause-even when an action would be unconstitutional. There is also the common law system which are crimes recognized by the courts without a statute, but that is rarely used. There is no consent, and some may argue there never really was and cannot be. However, I think, the closest thing I can get to a true consent to be governed is to restore the concept of natural law. We are so far off course for that.
The question of jurisdiction is not really my forte outside of chancery, which is yet another way for a court to have jurisdiction over us. Chancery isn't too bad to challenge jurisdiction over, but you have judges that don't understand this basic concept because of influence from the feminist lobby. As to criminal and tort matters, issues like jurisdiction tend to be addressed prior to trial to be heard in the trial courts and to preserve the issue on appeal. These questions of law generally are not for a jury. However, there may be issues raised in trial that I suppose could ask a just to grant a directed verdict, or influence their decision on a question of fact. I am not sure if matters of jurisdiction can be raised in criminal or tort cases for the first time on appeal.
What a few of us are trying now is to petition for declaratory relief after the inferior courts steam roll over a demurrer, deny a motion to suppress, and deny a motion to arrest a judgement. Appeals courts just review the process, not issues of law, so that becomes a dead end/ monetary and time drain.
Every political crime or mere statutory violation/complaint lacks probable cause on its face. If a cop is "stating probable cause" then he is the injured party and cannot bring a criminal complaint, or one on behalf of his agency, at least in the common law. Common law is the rule of decision in almost all of the states. Soooo... someone else needs to swear out an affidavit so that the cop or agency can have authority to act. For at some point, there must be someone who is going to take liability or at least responsablility off of the court officers should they be acting with authority and the charges are not proven.
On the flip side, there must be a sworn statement of injury or damage for the court to proceed with lawful authority. Usually what the cops and agencies do to keep the warrant from being attacked is to bring it under a separate and different case number than the complaint. Using it in the complaint gives it the presumption that it is sufficient as it has not yet been attacked and determined.
Sneaky and corrupt little bastards they are.
Generally, there has to be something new for courts to revisit a case, and bogus cases are put out by the tens of thousands. Look at the stories coming out about officers whose corruption was undiscovered for decades. I wish I had the links on hand to publish :/
As a follower of @followforupvotes this post has been randomly selected and upvoted! Enjoy your upvote and have a great day!
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by firstamendment from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.