So a friend of mine is facing 21 years in prison...UPDATE: Convicted on all 3 counts, will serve 90

4,837
215
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Ok, so my friend Adam "Ademo" and Pete started a website LibertyOnTour, where they traveled around the country in "Marv", the RV they were using to travel around the country to promote ideas of a voluntary society and police brutality activism. Then, they started a website called CopBlock.org which is a site dedicated to filming police officers performing brutality and holding them accountable for suppressing the rights of the individual. Adam and Pete have been arrested numerous times in various States for filming police officers, in which charges have been dropped because of the States' frivolous arguments.

Earlier today, my friend Pete sends me an email with this article highlighting his pending case. It was covered by the Huffington Post.


Adam "Ademo" Mueller, Journalist And CopBlock.org Founder, Faces 21 Years In Jail After Reporting School Police Brutality

Posted: 08/06/2012 1:32 pm Updated: 08/06/2012 4:54 pm

Adam "Ademo" Mueller, a journalist and co-host of radio show Free Talk Live, is facing 21 years in prison for reporting on police brutality toward students at a Manchester, N.H. high school.

Mueller, also founder of CopBlock.org, has been charged with three felony counts of wiretapping, each of which carries a 7-year maximum penalty. CopBlock.org is an online project that, according to its site, seeks police accountability and "curtail the all-too-common rights-violations and unaccountability that today exists."

Last October, video surfaced on CopBlock.org of 17-year-old Frank W. Harrington being lifted from his seat in the school cafeteria by a school police officer and slammed face-first into a table.

At the time, Harrington took his sister's purse and said he was "just messing around." Although the West High School teen said his sister was largely unconcerned, school officials involved school resource officer Darren Murphy, who lifted Harrington off his seat, spun him around, forced him onto the table and arrested him.

Harrington was suspended for 12 days and charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Michael Proulx, the 17-year-old junior at the school who recorded the incident, was also told by a school official that it's "illegal to film," and ordered to delete anything he had recorded. Proulx lied, saying he had only taken photos, and pretended to erase them.

In response, Mueller took to CopBlock.org to defend both Proulx and Harrington, noting in a report that "Murphy provides the misguided administrator an exact example why filming police is important -- oh, and it's not illegal at all." He also called the Manchester police department and the school seeking comment.

But he chose to record the conversations he had with a Manchester police captain, the Manchester High School West principal and a school secretary, and then included soundbites in a video post. The wiretapping indictments came a few months later, and he is accused of recording the conversations without the other parties' consent.

Assistant Hillsborough County Attorney Michael G. Valentine could not be reached for comment by the Union Leader.

The state's wiretap law makes it a crime to record someone without permission if the speaker has "reasonable expectation that what he is saying is not subject to interception," according to the Union Leader. Mueller says, however, that he identified himself as being from CopBlock.org and sought comment about the incident.

Mueller has been offered a plea deal of a two-year suspended sentence, which he is refusing.

"Here's how I see the offer: it's a stellar deal if I actually thought what I had done was wrong," Mueller wrote in a post on CopBlock.org. "First, I can't go against my principles and sign a deal that says I acknowledge my actions as wrong or illegal. Second, I'm not a hypocrite. How can I advocate refusing plea deals and sign one myself? I don't judge anyone who has taken pleas because each case/charge is different. Third, I am confident I can show a jury, with facts and logic, that I shouldn't be caged for my actions.... Let the circus begin!"

A "Free Ademo" campaign has already launched to support Mueller, including attending Monday's jury selection at the local courthouse. New Hampshire recently passed a jury nullification law that permits defense attorneys to inform jurors of their right to vote on conscience and void bad laws through "not guilty" verdicts.

"A public official who is on duty and in a public space has no expectation of privacy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled on this in Glik vs. Cunniff," Ian Freeman, co-host of the nationally syndicated radio show Free Talk Live, said in a CNN iReport. "The person who should face consequences is the officer who threw that poor kid into a table during lunch at the school cafeteria, not the journalist who reported about it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/adam-ademo-mueller-journa_n_1748057.html




UPDATE:

So my friend was found guilty on all 3 counts of "wiretapping" 3 State workers while they were on their job. It took the jury only 50 minutes to deliberate on something the government does everyday with our text messages, phone calls, medical records, emails, ect. A little over year ago, he and my other friend Pete were found NOT GUILTY for doing the same thing in Massachusetts.
 
Last edited:
Adam "Ademo" Mueller, a journalist and co-host of radio show Free Talk Live, is facing 21 years in prison for reporting on police brutality toward students at a Manchester, N.H. high school.

Theres a charge for that?!?!?
 
I laude his efforts and agree with his principles. But, that is a slippery slope he is headed down. That is like gambling in Vegas, the house always wins...in due time.
 
There isn't. The State is saying that it was "wiring tapping".

I know what you're saying, but...WHAT?!

Shame. Shame, shame shame. Its probably gonna get thrown out and the state knows that. They just want to spook him so he'll stop filming ish.
 
he recorded the conversations with the police and the principal over the phone, without them knowing, its not quite the same as bugging somebody's phone and listening to their convos, but the invasion of privacy is still there


In the last part of the story I posted:

"A public official who is on duty and in a public space has no expectation of privacy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled on this in Glik vs. Cunniff,


If it was a private citizen, this would be true. But my friend has precedent.
 
I laude his efforts and agree with his principles. But, that is a slippery slope he is headed down. That is like gambling in Vegas, the house always wins...in due time.

It's tricky to rely on cases like Gilk v Cunniffe if they haven't went to the supreme court and been incorporated into the states. Who knows, this case may have the potential to do so. Though seemingly a valid precedent, the state will undoubtedly find some loop holes that dude's logic may have failed to taken into consideration. Hopefully the jury buys it. It's bs IMO. I don't see how a public official opperating in a public office could have any reasonae expectations to privacy... Especially if dude identified himself as being a reporter from the website.
 
Last edited:
What you expect when you try to go at those in charge? They strike back. In this case in a clear corrupt way. If anything I figure dude will be proud to go down for the cause for this clear injustice.

As long as it isn't a complicated case of police brutality like the cop was under cover or it was some sting op he'll be able to make this a hot topic on the news, once the young ppl support the movement.
 
Last edited:
a good lawyer is gonna make an example of the state trying to convict him but there is NO WAY that they give him anything but a slap on the wrist
 
The issue at hand isn't whether police brutality took place. The issue is whether Meuller's actions violates the officer's right to an expectation of privacy. That's what the prosecution is going to focus on. Little dambs will be given about the copy's brutal actions or misuse of power.
 
I respect what your friends are doing. I've always been semi-perplexed at how it's illegal to videotape cops unless it's cops videoing other cops....like wtf.

Hope your homies get outta this.
 
it's a noble cause and it's an issue that needs a lot more attention. unfortunately, the law is the law, fair or not.
 
What the cop did wasn't wrong, though.

He saw a kid snatch a purse, assumed he was stealing (which he should've), and acted appropriately. There's no reason for the cop to expect the kid to stop and hand over the bag if he asks him to. No brutality there.

Yet, at the same time I don't believe it was wire tapping.
 
No surprise. Imagine that, if you catch what the pigs do on tape, you get the book thrown at you. What do they have to hide that they don't want it on tape? Police state becoming more and more apparent everyday.
 
I laude his efforts and agree with his principles. But, that is a slippery slope he is headed down.

This. He better cop that plea.

No he shouldn't. That's how they get a lot of people and from the sound of it they know they don't really have a case and offered him the 2yrs. Facing 21? of course they try to scare him.

OP will you please keep us updated on this case.
 
Back
Top Bottom