Newspaper Publisher Arrested for Taking Video at Police Checkpoint
Tommy Russo publishes the Maui Time weekly newspaper in Maui, Hawaii, and he has a history of police encounters due to his independent style of journalism.
This week he was arrested for the second time in the past year, this time for recording a police checkpoint which was set up to collect revenue from people who had minor code violations with their vehicle or registration.
The video of the altercation shows Russo pulling up the checkpoint, stepping out of his car and walking up to a police officer who ordered him back to his car, but didn’t say anything about the filming. Next he came across a second cop who was extremely hostile with him and eventually arrested him when he asserted his rights.
Police charged Russo with “obstructing a government operation” because they couldn’t find a legitimate charge to book him under. Even if it was a legitimate charge, according to the local law books Russo was not guilty of obstruction
It is likely that this case will never stand up in court, and the cops probably knew that when they arrested him. The point probably wasn’t to get a charge out of the deal, but mainly to get Russo out of their way and shut him up. When anyone tries to hold the police accountable for what they are doing, they have no choice but to fall back on force because that is the only social tool that they know how to use.
At this point it is easier for cops to lock people up for harmless things like this because right now it is a minority of people who are actually trying to hold them accountable. However, if there were a few more people getting out of their cars at this checkpoint demanding accountability along with Russo, the cops would have no clue what to do.
Video:
Harold
ACGR's "News with Attitude" 
Will News Publishers NEXT get a Cops’ Boot in the Face?
Considering the direct the U.S. Police State appears headed, I wouldn’t be surprised if next local police threaten news publishers in their offices. Nazi Brown Shirts to shut up reporters beat them up on the street and in their offices, smashed their printing equipment, burned their offices, assassinated journalists. This started in the year run up to Hitler getting German Parliament to pass Hitler’s 1933 Decrees that suspended the Reich Constitution that prior had protected Citizens’ civil liberties and free speech. The U.S. version of similar fascist legislation is the Patriot Act and recent (NDAA) The Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
NDAA 2012, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees enforces censorship; refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in NDAA 2012 keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.
Almost immediately after German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens and confiscated their guns without probable cause or evidence; delegated powers to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.
You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act lends itself to Government / police corruption; the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.
Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.
Under NDAA 2012 it should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.