#

United States District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe gave a partial win Tuesday to parents suing the Bow School District after being punished over holding a silent demonstration in support of protecting girl’s sports.

Bow High School parent Kyle Fellers can now go to his daughter’s soccer games, but he can’t wear the pink “XX” wrist band that got him and three other parents in trouble last month. Fellers and Anthony “Andy” Foote were slapped with no trespassing orders by Bow school officials for engaging in a silent protest at the Sept. 17 game.

McAuliffe said while there are complex nuances to the case that need to be sorted out, it’s clear the school was violating the First Amendment rights of the four adults at the game.

“You can’t suppress free speech based on whether you think it’s appropriate,” McAuliffe said.

Fellers, Andy Foote, Nicole Foote, and Eldon Rush are seeking the right to keep wearing pink “XX” armbands to games, but McAuliffe said both Bow’s attorney, Brian Cullen, and attorneys for the parents need to show more evidence and legal arguments to make the case. An evidentiary hearing will be set for November.

Cullen and the district argue the school can set limits on free speech in order to protect students from harassment and other harms. But given the facts before him, McAuliffe wasn’t sold that the school showed it was protecting anyone from any real harassment.

“How is wearing a pink wristband harassment?” McAuliffe asked.

Attorney for the parents Endel Kolde, with the nonprofit Institute for Free Speech, said school officials are punishing people who hold unpopular views.

“Everyone knows if they wore rainbow wristbands in support of trans students, or if they wore blue and gold wristbands in support of the war in Ukraine, nothing would have happened,” Kolde said.

The district was on high alert heading into the Sept. 17 game as Bow was set to host Plymouth High School where transgender student Parker Tirrell plays on the girl’s soccer team. Tirrell won an injunction on Sept. 10 against the state law that bans biological males from playing on girl’s teams.

Cullen said Bow had an obligation to keep Tirrell from being harassed by rowdy, crude protests or heckling. But according to Kodel, few people, including Tirrell, knew about the wristbands until school officials confronted the parents and ordered them to remove the offending accessories. The protest coincided with the Plymouth game, but it was in no way directed at Tirrell, Kodel said.

McAuliffe said while there is not enough evidence on the record to determine what, if any, harm was done by the protests, the pink wristbands on their own symbolize a non-bigoted viewpoint that is still open for debate, that girl’s sports is a space for biological girls. 

Even if Tirrell was aware of the wristbands during the Sept. 17 game, it does not automatically rise to the level of an offense that requires the school to step in and curb the constitutional rights of adults.

“Surely, it’s not harmful for a trans student playing on a girl’s team to know there are people who don’t think they should be playing on the girl’s team,” McAuliffe said

After the Bow School District slapped them with a no trespass order over wearing pink wristbands to their daughters’ soccer game in support of girls-only sports, Anthony “Andy” Foote and Kyle Fellers filed a lawsuit defending their right to free speech.

On Tuesday, Fellers will be in court asking a federal judge to remove the no trespass order banning him from his daughter’s activities, hours before her next home soccer game.

The Institute for Free Speech and local counsel Richard Lehmann will argue in favor of a temporary restraining order to block the district’s ban. The hearing is set for 2:30 p.m. Tuesday in the United States District Court in Concord.

The next Bow soccer game is scheduled for Tuesday at 6:45 p.m.

“We just want a dad to be able to see his daughter play high school soccer,” Lehmann told NHJournal. “The idea that someone gets punished for holding views that are unpopular with people at the top of the local power structure is un-American, and it should end. Now.”

The lawsuit was filed by Fellers, Foote, Foote’s wife Nicole, and Eldon Rash, all Bow residents.

On Sept. 17, when Bow was facing Plymouth Regional High School, Fellers and Anthony Foote showed up wearing pink wristbands with “XX” written on them, symbolizing the two X chromosomes women have. Plymouth has a biological male on its girls soccer team.

During the game, school officials, along with Bow Police Lt.  Phil Lamy confronted the parents and demanded they remove the wristbands or leave. When the parents refused, citing their First Amendment rights, they were threatened with arrest for trespassing. The referee then stopped the game and said Bow High School would forfeit if the plaintiffs did not remove their wristbands.

The no trespass order against Foote expired after a week, but the one filed against Fellers extends through the entire fall season. Not only does it ban him from future soccer games, it also bars him from going to any school event, sports related or not. It even keeps him from being able to do things like picking up his children from after-school practices, according to the complaint.

The Bow School District is scrambling to fix its apparent free speech violation, according to the motion filed to support the TRO. Since the Sept. 17 game, the district created a new “free speech zone” at home games, restricting any protests or demonstrations to an area near the scoreboard that is 50 yards away from the field.

The new policy also limits the times people are allowed to use the “free speech zone” to 30 minutes before and after games, and the policy limits the number of people allowed to take part to no more than 50 people at a given time. 

The lawsuit names Kelley and Lamy as defendants along with Bow High School Principal Matt Fisk, Bow Athletic Director Mike Desilets, and soccer referee Steve Rossetti. 

Appealing to Heaven may not be feasible in a First Amendment dispute, but a federal lawsuit could work.

A Nashua official’s decision to ban the historic Pine Tree flag from outside City Hall this summer is landing Mayor Jim Donchess’ administration in court. Attorneys with the Institute for Free Speech say the city’s abuse of its flagpole policy violates the First Amendment.

“Nashua’s flag policy gives city officials unbridled discretion to censor speech they dislike,” said Institute for Free Speech Attorney Nathan Ristuccia. “The First Amendment doesn’t permit the government to turn a longstanding public forum into a personal billboard for city officials’ preferred views. The Supreme Court has warned against exactly this abuse.”

The Institute for Free Speech is representing Nashua resident Beth Scaer in the lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Concord. Scaer applied to fly a Pine Tree flag from the city’s flagpole in June, but was denied.

“It’s disturbing that Nashua officials can arbitrarily silence voices they disagree with,” Scaer said. “The Pine Tree Flag represents an important part of our local history, yet the city wouldn’t allow it to fly because it’s somehow not ‘in harmony’ with their message. But this isn’t about one flag—it’s about protecting everyone’s right to free speech.”

The complaint points out that the city maintains a “Citizen Flag Pole” in front of city hall for people “to fly a flag in support of cultural heritage, [to] observe an anniversary, honor a special accomplishment, or support a worthy cause.” Those causes have included Pride Month, Indian Independence Day, Brazilian Independence Day, Greek Independence Day, International Francophonie Day, and the anniversary of the founding of Nashua’s Lions Club, according to court records.

Scaer herself used the flagpole to fly flags celebrating Martin Luther, Women’s Suffrage, and Christianity. But she started running into trouble in 2020 when her flag with the message “Save Women’s Sports” was removed after one day when City Councilor Jan Schmidt complained.

At the time of the 2020 incident, Nashua had no written policy on flag approval. But a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling concerning a citizen’s flag controversy in Boston prompted Nashua to draft one.

The Nashua policy states, “This potential use of a City flag pole is not intended to serve as a forum for free expression by the public. Any message sought to be permitted will be allowed only if it is in harmony with city policies and messages that the city wishes to express and endorse.”

The Institute for Free Speech says that’s not good enough. The net effect is viewpoint censorship, says Mat Staver, founder and chairman of the nonprofit, pro-faith legal group Liberty Counsel. He should know. His organization filed the lawsuit that resulted in the Supreme Court ruling Nashua is accused of violating.

When the City of Boston banned conservative activist Hal Shurtleff from flying the Christian flag, with its white banner and red cross on a blue field, at Boston City Hall in 2017, Staver and Liberty Counsel took the city to court. They eventually won a $2.1 million award and set a legal standard at the U.S. Supreme Court he says Nashua is now failing.

“They’re clearly violating the citizens’ right to free speech, and if they don’t reverse themselves they are subject to a lawsuit. It will be expensive for the city,” Staver told NHJournal.

Scaer’s February application to fly a flag supporting people who detransition after a sex change procedure was denied this year as it was deemed “not in harmony with the message that the City wishes to express and endorse.”

Undeterred, Scaer sought permission to fly a Pine Tree flag around the anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, in part to honor Granite Staters who fought in the battle. A version of the Pine Tree flag is believed to have flown at that battle.

In particular, Scaer wanted to fly what is known as the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, featuring that phrase (from philosopher John Locke) and a pine tree. The pine tree is also a reference to the 1772 Pine Tree Riot, which took place in Weare, N.H., and is widely viewed as one of the first skirmishes in the American Revolution.

But city officials denied the request, stating the flag celebrating Revolutionary War patriots was also not in harmony with the Donchess administration’s vision. The city did not explain why it found the flag objectionable.

The Pine Tree flag made news earlier this year when it was reported conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito flew it at his New Jersey vacation home. The flag was also brandished by a handful of people in the violent mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The prevailing media narrative then linked Alito to the flag and to the Jan. 6 attack, with barely a mention of the flag’s true origin.

NOTE: An earlier version of this story mistakenly reported Liberty Counsel attempted to fly the Christian Flag in Boston. It was Hal Shurtleff and Camp Constitution, who were later represented by Liberty Counsel. NHJournal regrets the error.

Neo-Nazi leader Christopher Hood failed to respond to a civil rights lawsuit alleging he broke the law when he orchestrated his NSC-131 gang to violently protest a Drag Queen Story Hours event at the Teatotaler Cafe in Concord.

But don’t tell his donors. Hood’s already raised more than $17,000 for his legal defense through crowdfunding donation sites even after he was found in default on May 10.

Hood, a Massachusetts resident, allegedly led his masked supporters to be an intimidating and threatening presence at Teatotaler’s last summer. The hate group members shouted threatening white-power slogans and pounded on windows in an attempt to stop drag performer Juicy Garland from reading a children’s book, according to court records.

With Hood in default, he now faces the prospect of going straight to the judgment phase of the case without a trial on the evidence. The case is complicated by the fact NSC-131 as an entity was dismissed as a defendant in the case earlier this month as well.

Court records filed in Merrimack Superior Court indicate the group was not properly served with the lawsuit in the given timeframe, and dropped as a defendant. Michael Garrity, spokesman for the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, said lawyers with the Civil Rights Unit plan to appeal that decision.

“The Civil Rights Unit plans to ask the court to reconsider this order because NSC-131 was properly served as required by state law and served on time as required by the court,” Garrity said. “In that motion, the unit will ask the Court to reconsider the order, reinstate NSC-131 as party, and enter a notice of default against NSC-131 for failure to respond to the complaint as required by the court.”

Once NSC-131 is added back to the case, Garrity said the state will move to get the gang found in default just like Hood. The case can then go straight to judgment, and Garrity said the Attorney General’s Office will seek “appropriate penalties, restraining orders, and damages as provided for under state law.”

Hood’s online fundraising pitch asks for $100,000 for a legal defense that has multiple cases. NSC-131 is facing sanctions in Massachusetts and another New Hampshire case that’s gone to the state Supreme Court. 

Formella’s team brought civil rights charges against Hood and NSC-131 over its 2022 “white power” demonstration in Portsmouth. That case was dismissed last year on First Amendment grounds, but Formella is appealing to the state Supreme Court.

Hood has had difficulty in the past obtaining the services of a lawyer, but he may not have to try too hard this time. The NH-ACLU recently filed a brief in support of the neo-Nazis’ free-speech rights in the Portsmouth case.

“Simply because speech is harmful – and it undoubtedly is here – does not mean that it can be prohibited because of its viewpoint,” ACLU lawyers wrote.

Formella called the ACLU’s decision to weigh in on behalf of Hood and NSC-131 “disappointing.”

“Hate has no place in New Hampshire, and we will not sit idly by while organized hate groups like NSC-131 commit illegal acts for the purpose of harassing and even terrorizing our citizens,” Formella said. “As my office articulated in its opening brief to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, the right to engage in speech does not permit people to commit unlawful acts, such as the trespass that NSC-131 has been accused of committing.”

When the Northwood School Board meets Wednesday night, it won’t be to cover the “three R’s.” Instead, they’ll be dealing with the “N-word” and other racial and obscene comments from one of their own members: outspoken progressive Gary Caron.

Caron has a history of using obscene and sexually explicit language to attack conservatives and Republicans in social posts, and the newest member of Northwood’s School Board hasn’t slowed down since taking office.

When a conservative commentator posted a meme with the message that former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ought to be sent to the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp last week, Caron responded with a sexual threat.

“I’d love to see you in GTMO after I [explicit] your ass red raw,” Caron posted.

When another conservative account posted a photo of controversial Republican political candidate Kari Lake around that same time, Caron was quick with a misogynistic response.

“Gfyself lying c—t,” Caron wrote.

Caron posted dozens of obscene, angry, and violent messages on Twitter/X over the past few years, mostly directed at conservative and Republican figures. One post about Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) from January includes an implied racial slur targeting African Americans.

“F**king house N—a sellout coward c***suvker gfyself,” Caron wrote.

After a flurry of complaints over the Presidents Day weekend, Caron’s fellow board members had had enough. Northwood Superintendent Nathaniel Byrne told NHJournal that the board will be addressing Caron’s behavior at the upcoming meeting.

The board will discuss “racist, graphic, and violent social media posts from a current school board member.” Caron plans to be at the meeting, according to Byrne.

Caron was elected to a three-year term on the board last March when he ran unopposed for the seat. The retired engineer worked for the United States Navy on submarine modernization and weapons systems, according to his resume posted on LinkedIn. As part of his work, Caron held a security clearance.

Caron could not be reached for comment as the several phone numbers publicly associated with him, including the cell phone number on his resume, were disconnected or are no longer in service.

According to a questionnaire he filled out prior to last year’s school board election, Caron is concerned with how children are taught history in school.

“Issues of importance are teaching truth, American history, civics, democracy, civil rights, and civil liberties,” Caron wrote.

There is a noticeable lack of advocacy for civil rights — or civility in general — in Caron’s public postings. And he’s made no secret of his partisan leanings, declaring his “hate” for “Trump, his supporters, White men, Christians and Conservatives.”

“This is vile and disgusting. This man makes decisions regarding the materials that will be in the hands of children and public policy,” wrote Manchester politico Victoria Sullivan, one of the Granite Staters who brought Caron’s posts to the school board’s attention.

It’s not clear what Caron will do next or what the board can do about his posts. Byrne has spoken to Caron and told NHJournal he doesn’t know if Caron plans to resign his seat, though the possibility was mentioned.

“I’m not aware of his decision. I do know he will be at the meeting this week,” Byrne said.

Wednesday’s meeting could prove frustrating for anyone hoping the board takes action. Northwood’s school board does not have a policy dealing with social media use by members, Byrne said.

“The board is not allowed to infringe on any other members’ First Amendment rights,” Byrne said.

The board does have a code of ethics policy, however, and Byrne said that will guide Wednesday’s discussion about Caron’s social media posts. But that policy, last updated in 2015, mostly concerns board member interactions with other board members. It does not address how board members conduct themselves with members of the general public.

Granite State college students enjoy greater freedom of speech at the University of New Hampshire than their peers at the prestigious Ivy League school, Dartmouth College.

The annual college rankings released this week by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, puts UNH third nationally, trailing only Michigan Tech and Auburn.

UNH President James W. “Jim” Dean Jr. said the school takes its responsibility to foster speech seriously.

“Free speech is one of the most fundamental American constitutional rights. As a public university, UNH protects and promotes this value by ensuring our students can be exposed to new and different ideas that will hopefully inspire growth and intellectual curiosity,” Dean said. “This new report from FIRE validates the work we have done and will continue to do to foster an environment where free speech can flourish.”

Meanwhile, Dartmouth, one of the most exclusive — and expensive — colleges in America, ranks near the bottom: 240 out of 248.

That’s a major drop-off for Dartmouth, which came in at 63 in 2021 and 83 in 2022.

According to data compiled by FIRE, a big reason behind that wide gap is UNH students don’t think it is acceptable to shut down controversial speakers, while Dartmouth students are OK with censorship.

FIRE’s Director of Polling and Analytics, Sean Stevens, said students at elite schools like Dartmouth, Harvard University (248), Northwestern (242), and Georgetown (245) are more inclined to prevent speakers they don’t like from being heard on campus The common denominator is those schools are predominately liberal

“There’s this elite culture to be tolerant, but most of those schools do poorly on the disruptive conduct survey,” Stevens said. 

As part of the review process, students were surveyed about how comfortable they felt speaking about controversial topics on campus and in class. They were also asked if shutting down speakers through protest, disruption, or even violence was ever acceptable.

“As you get more and more liberal on the spectrum (the students) are more likely to say those things are at least rarely acceptable,” Stevens said.

One of the findings: Many college students think shouting down a speaker is acceptable behavior, even at schools that rank highly. At UNH, just 44 percent of students said shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is always unacceptable. 

At Dartmouth, however, that dropped to 26 percent, meaning most students believe in stopping speakers they don’t like. That comes as no surprise to center-right students at Dartmouth. 

Last year, conservative journalist Andy Ngo’s scheduled in-person appearance at Dartmouth was canceled after a deluge of online threats from leftwing opponents. In 2020, more leftist threats of violence forced the cancellation of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Corky Messner’s scheduled speech on the need for border security to halt the flow of opioids into the U.S.

Stevens cited the Ngo and Messner events as reasons for Dartmouth’s poor ranking.

“They can’t undo the disinvitations, but they can do better,” Stevens said.

In contrast, UNH stood by a controversial group over objections from liberal students, Stevens said. In March, students staged a walkout after the Christian Legal Society student group planned a vigil for victims of a Tennessee school shooting. UNH liberal activists accused the Christian group of engaging in anti-transgender hate. The Tennessee shooter identified as transgender.

UNH also announced Wednesday that Dean is retiring as president on June 30, 2024.

It has been almost a year since an unknown vandal attacked the homes of New Hampshire Public Radio personalities, incidents that are now part of former Granite Recovery CEO Eric Spofford’s defamation lawsuit filed against the broadcaster. The investigations seem to be stalled.

In April and May of last year, an unknown assailant threw bricks at and spray-painted threats on the current or former homes of NHPR News Director Dan Barrick and reporter Lauren Chooljian. The attacks happened in Hanover, Hampstead, Concord, and Melrose, Mass.

Spofford has denied any role in the vandalism and claimed in court records that NHPR illegally used the vandalism to gain an advantage in his civil defamation case, just as the case was headed for a settlement.

However, NHJournal has uncovered details that seem to link one of Spofford’s friends, Eric Labarge, to the vandalism. Labarge is himself a recovering addict and owner of the Starting Point Recovery Centers.

Labarge has not been charged in the vandalism cases. He has a criminal history that includes violence against women and spent time in state prison.

He is also currently awaiting trial on charges of assaulting a man in Manchester. That assault occurred on May 31, 2022, days after the last vandalism attack in May. According to court records, the alleged victim was a man who had been a resident at a Starting Point center. 

Labarge’s attorney, Charles Keefe, did not return requests for comment.

Spofford confirmed his relationship with Labarge to NHJournal and praised Labarge’s work in recovery. 

“I worked closely with Eric Labarge to help him overcome his addiction in the early days of his sobriety,” Spofford said. “I’ve had the opportunity to watch him grow through the ups and downs of recovery for almost 10 years. He’s done great things for the recovery community, and I believe he will continue to for years to come.”

Hanover Police began investigating vandalism on April 24 when the resident reported someone threw a brick at the home and spray painted the word “C–T” on the building, according to the reports. The home was not occupied by anyone connected with NHPR during the vandalism, but Chooljian had lived in it a few years earlier, according to police.

Hanover Police soon learned the spray-painted vulgarity and thrown bricks matched the vandalism that took place in other communities where NHPR reporters lived. During the investigation, detectives talked to police in Hampstead and learned Labarge was a suspect in that town, according to the report.

The Hanover police report has been retracted, but it appears the victim in the Manchester assault may have also been a suspect in the vandalism, according to the Hanover report. The Hanover report obtained through a Right to Know request obscures the names of the suspects, but it does include the Manchester Police Department’s incident number for the assault, which matched the court records for Labarge’s arrest.

Hanover police were given information from the Hampstead department on the vehicle used in the attack, and it seemed to match the one used in Hanover. However, after being unable to develop further leads in the case, Hanover police closed the investigation last year.

Spofford, who was called a person of interest by police in Massachusetts, claimed in court documents that NHPR took advantage of the vandalism, canceling settlement talks and using its media reach to cast blame on him for the damage.

Spofford reportedly made himself available to investigators as soon as he learned of the vandalism in Melrose, but police have never questioned him. 

Spofford’s attorney, Ben Levine, claimed NHPR’s use of the criminal case to cancel the settlement talks may have been criminal.

“Whether and to what extent NHPR used these acts of vandalism in an opportunistic way to evade accountability for defaming Mr. Spofford should be investigated as it is criminal in nature,” Levine wrote last year to New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella’s office.

Chooljian reported last March that Spofford engaged in sexual misconduct while head of Granite State Recovery Centers. The allegations against Spofford made national news. He has denied any sexual misconduct.

Sigmund Schutz, the attorney representing NHPR, did not respond to a request for comment. NHPR is trying to dismiss Spofford’s defamation lawsuit on First Amendment grounds. A ruling on the motion to dismiss is pending in Rockingham Superior Court. 

Does attending Latin Mass make you more likely to support white supremacist violence?

That was the premise of a leaked FBI memo naming “Radical-Traditionalist Catholics” (RTCs) as a potential threat and outlining opportunities for agents to recruit assets within the Catholic Church.

The memo, which was disavowed by the FBI just days after it was leaked, singled out a New Hampshire-based community as a specific concern.

“The writer makes an unsubstantiated leap that a preference for the Catholic Mass in Latin instead of the vernacular and a number of more traditional views on other world religions can amount to an ‘adherence to anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ and white supremacist ideology,’” wrote former FBI agent Kyle Seraphin, who leaked the memo.

“Products like this can be used to support the opening of information-only cases, and there is no reason to expect Radical-Traditionalist Catholics are the end point of this train track – they will be the beginning. Opening the door to associating white supremacists with traditional religious practices based on common Christian positions on abortion and the LGBTQ political agendas is a dangerous step,” Seraphin added.

The memo lists several groups accused of harboring extreme views, including the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary based in Richmond, N.H. They are a splinter group from the original Slaves organization founded by the Rev. Leonard Feeney in the 1950s. Feeney held antisemitic beliefs and was for a time excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.

The leader of the Slaves, Louis Villarubia, who goes by Brother Andre Marie, has been accused of making antisemitic comments in the past. And the order’s strict adherence to the Catholic teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” is a violation of accepted Catholic doctrine. As a result, the group has been barred from calling themselves Catholic by Manchester Diocese Bishop Peter Libasci.

But Villarubia says simply holding unorthodox or unpopular beliefs is no reason to be targeted by the federal government.

“As a citizen of one of these United States—the great state of New Hampshire—I am appalled and outraged that some in America’s most powerful federal agency now propose to surveil peaceful, law-abiding Americans because of their traditional religious beliefs, the same beliefs which for Catholics, until a few generations ago, were held always and everywhere, by everyone,” Villarubbia said in a statement.

William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said even if there are people with extreme views in the traditionalist community, they do not give up their First Amendment rights by virtue of being outliers.

“Some of these people may be kooky, but they are not exactly Antifa, about which the FBI has done little. So why the probe?” Donohue said.

Seraphin and Donohue see the memo as part of a larger anti-religion, anti-Catholic, anti-pro-life bias inside the federal government. Critics point to the recent case of Catholic father and pro-life activist Mark Houck who was charged with federal felonies for a scuffle outside a Philadelphia abortion clinic. Even though local prosecutors refused to charge Houck, the Biden Department of Justice sent an armed SWAT team to his home to arrest him and charge him with federal crimes. Houck, who had no criminal history, faced up to 11 years in prison.

It took the jury less than an hour to acquit him of all charges.

And if the civil rights of Catholics are under fire in New Hampshire, they can’t count on help from the state’s ACLU. Gilles Bissonnette, legal director at the NH ACLU, did not respond to a request for comment. The organization has been silent on the FBI’s proposal to infiltrate a religious Christian community. 

It is the same NH ACLU that was part of the lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive order imposing a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

A group of Republican attorneys general is pushing back, signing on to a letter written by Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares to FBI Director Christopher Wray and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland calling out anti-Catholic bigotry.

“Anti-Catholic bigotry appears to be festering in the FBI, and the Bureau is treating Catholics as potential terrorists because of their beliefs,” Miyares wrote.

The only protestor convicted for protesting COVID-19 lockdowns in front of Gov. Chris Sununu’s home is taking his case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Frank Negus Staples, aka Foot Loose, is appealing his conviction on one count of disorderly conduct for his role in the protests outside the homes of Sununu and Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald. He was among nine people arrested during the protests, and the only one convicted.

“We were all found not guilty of ‘picketing,’” Staples said. “I was found guilty of ‘disorderly conduct.’”

NHJournal reporter Chris Maidment was arrested during the protests and charged with picketing, despite identifying himself to authorities as a journalist on assignment. NHJournal earned a First Amendment award from the New Hampshire Press Association for its work on the story, and the charges were dismissed before the case went to trial.

MacDonald, who was New Hampshire’s Attorney General at the time of the protests, has recused himself from the case according to Staples. MacDonald’s Department of Justice was instrumental in creating the picketing ordinance used to charge the protestors.

“Gordon MacDonald has recused himself from the case due to his direct involvement in the creation of the town ‘picketing’ ordinance and how to enforce it,” Staples said.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court accepted Staples’ appeal as part of the dozens of cases accepted in November. A hearing date has not been set.

After Sununu started conducting government business from his home due to the pandemic, opponents of the governor’s COVID-19 policies started protesting in the street outside. Sununu and his neighbors expressed their unhappiness with the crowds of sign-waving demonstrators in their cul-de-sac, but the protestors were on public property.

In response, the town Board of Selectmen, including Sununu’s brother Michael, drafted an anti-picketing ordinance designed to discourage — if not prevent — the protests. Three members of the Sununu administration, including Department of Safety Commissioner Robert Quinn, testified on behalf of the protest ban at a December 8 select board meeting.

The language for the ordinance came directly from the Attorney General’s Office, according to emails obtained by NHJournal.

Concord attorney Seth Hipple, who represented several of the protesters, including Maidment, told NH Journal last year that the government is holding a losing hand.

“The prosecution’s case was a dumpster fire,” Hipple said.

None of the arresting officers were able to individually identify any of the protesters who were charged, and they were unable to specify what actions the protestors took that violated the law, according to Hipple.

Staples, who told NHJournal people do not like it when he gets loud, was a fixture at anti-COVID lockdown protests throughout the pandemic. He was among several people arrested at an Executive Council Meeting last year who were protesting a federal contract to pay for COVID vaccines.

Staples was also the lead protestor at the September 2021 Executive Council meeting that was shut down because of safety concerns.

Staples made statements to New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services employees that they deemed threatening.The employees were unnerved and subsequently escorted to their cars by New Hampshire State Police Troopers. Staples, who was shouting and acting in an aggressive manner through the meeting denies he meant a threat when he shouted “we know where you live” to the DHHS employees.

Staples and several other protestors at the September 2021 Executive Council meeting were investigated by Attorney General John Formella’s office, but no charges were ever brought.

After 18 months, Newfields Police Prosecutor Michael DiCroce is finally giving up on the case against an NHJournal reporter who was charged with a crime while covering protests outside Gov. Chris Sununu’s house.

DiCroce said he was tired of losing.

“We’ve tried eight or nine of them before Judge (Polly) Hall and she’s found all of them not guilty,” DiCroce said. “I’m not going to waste my time prosecuting the one or two left.”

On December 28, 2020, Newfields police used a controversial new ordinance to ticket protesters gathered outside Sununu’s home. They also ticketed Chris Maidment, a NHJournal reporter at the time who was covering the protest. Maidment repeatedly informed authorities he was a reporter and his coverage of the protest appeared at NHJournal the next day. Still, DiCroce insisted on prosecuting the case and does not concede the police did anything wrong.

“Town officials knew he was a reporter. I spoke to the prosecutor myself,” said NHJournal Managing Editor Michael Graham. “We repeatedly requested they drop this case, and they repeatedly declined. The fact that they still won’t admit that arresting a reporter for doing his job is wrong — particularly when politics are at play — should concern every First Amendment supporter in New Hampshire.”

DiCroce declined to say why he persisted in prosecuting Maidment.

“That’s something you’ll have to ask State Police,” DiCroce said.

New Hampshire State Police were involved in the protests by providing security for Sununu. However, documents obtained by NHJournal through a Right to Know request show Newfields Police coordinated with State Police, sharing information on the anti-picketing ordinance, and coordinating the press release about the original arrests.

“It’s quite obvious this case was without legal merit and a blatant First Amendment violation,” said Maidment, who now works for the New Hampshire chapter of Americans for Prosperity.

Concord attorney Seth Hipple, who represented several people charged that night including Maidment, said the government had a losing hand from the start.

“The prosecution’s case was a dumpster fire,” Hipple said.

None of the arresting officers were able to individually identify any of the protesters who were charged, and they were unable to specify what actions the protestors took that violated the law.

“It seemed really clear to me throughout this case the focus of law enforcement was to shield (Sununu) from seeing anybody protesting in front of his residence,” Hipple said.

After Sununu began conducting government business from his home due to the COVID-19 pandemic, opponents of the governor’s COVID-19 policies shifted their protests to the cul-de-sac outside his home.  Sununu and his neighbors expressed their unhappiness with the crowds of sign-waving demonstrators, but the protestors were on public property.

In response, the town Board of Selectmen, including Sununu’s brother Michael, drafted an anti-picketing ordinance designed to discourage — if not prevent — the protests. Three members of the Sununu administration, including Department of Safety Commissioner Robert Quinn, testified on behalf of the protest ban at a December 8, 2020 select board meeting.

Hipple said the town used legal language that was constitutionally problematic in the ordinance. The way it was enforced and prosecuted by Newfields police was even more problematic.

“The fact they arrested a reporter and continued to prosecute a reporter who identified himself shows it has nothing to do with enforcing the law,” Hipple said. “It’s definitely true that the impetus for passing this ordinance was that they didn’t want to have protests where (Sununu) was conducting state business.

The language for the ordinance came directly from the Attorney General’s Office, according to emails obtained by NHJournal.

The process began with a November 24, 2020 email from Michael Sununu to Newfields Police Chief Nathan Liebenow regarding, “complaints I have received from several residents on Hemlock [Court] regarding the protests this past weekend,” and suggesting existing town ordinances “which we need to consider enforcing.”

Chief Liebenow the next day wrote Senior Assistant Attorney General Matthew Broadhead thanking him for “reaching out and offering your assistance on this matter.” The Attorney General’s Office usually responds to requests from local law enforcement rather than reaching out and offering assistance.

Chief Liebenow told Broadhead he had been “speaking with his Board in Newfields” about town ordinances that “are most relevant/applicable in our situation.”

On November 30, 2020, Broadhead responded by suggesting potential language for an anti-picketing ordinance he believed could pass court muster.

“Chief, FYI, in a U.S. Supreme Court case, Frisby v. Schultz… the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the following ordinance: ‘it is unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual in the town of Brookfield.’ The court ruled that this ordinance does not violate the First Amendment,” Broadhead wrote.

That language was eventually adopted word for word by the Newfields select board. 

Sununu’s team has denied the governor had anything to do with the ordinance or its passage.

The New Hampshire Press Association gave NHJournal’s coverage of the story a “Free Speech” award earlier this month.

Maidment said he expects the involved parties to do the right thing.

“I expect a formal written apology from the New Hampshire State Police, Newfields Police, and Prosecutor DiCroce any day now,” Maidment said.