The judge has ordered my case against Trump and his minions to move forward.
Fun fact: I’ve been arrested eight times since the 2016 election. But, this is the case that’s taken the longest. Here’s the backstory:
On Oct. 12th, 2015, Vermin and I attended the “No Labels Problem Solvers Convention,” a multi-candidate event comprised of Democrats and Republicans ranging from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump. It was a rowdy event geared toward college-aged kids, featuring “Problem Solver Man,” in green spandex played by Zach Fox of Fat Camp Films.
After Donald Trump briefly took to the stage, there were some issues with the sound system for the Q&A, so I took the opportunity to politely stand and ask Trump a question. I was in the front row and reminded Trump he was roughed up at a Trump rally in Rochester the week before. At that rally, Trump had called on me to recite my favorite bible verse. I replied, “First Timothy 3, 1-7. It is noble to seek the office of overseer, but he who does, should be above reproach, sober-minded, not quarrelsome, married only once and not a great lover of money.” In Rochester, Trump replied, “oh boy, am I in trouble, am I in trouble.” As I was trying to leave Rochester, I received many kidney punches, and had my camera swatted to the floor, ruining most of the footage— but I was able to salvage some, proving it had indeed happened.Rod Webber’s No Label’s arrest from Rod “BannedFromYouTube” Webber on Vimeo.
At No Labels, Trump responded, “you look healthy to me,” at which point they were plugging in the PA, making Trump’s response inaudible from where I was. At this time, Eddie Deck Junior, (who had attacked Efrain Galicia in New York City the month before), tapped me on the shoulder and told me if I went to the back of the room to go to the mic I could ask my question. Suspecting I was being deceived, I nonetheless followed through with the political theater, and went to the back of the room. Of course, there was no mic, and when I turned around there were a wall of Trump staff stopping me from going back. I reminded them it wasn’t a Trump rally. A Trump staffer, Fred Doucette told me, “you want the mic, you’re not getting the mic.” The situation escalated, with Eddie when I challenged his jurisdiction, reminding him that he had no authority there. I asked his name, and Eddie responded, “you wanna know my name— you’re about to see my name all over your face.” This was a clear threat. Eddie and other staffers began signaling to off-duty police which were hired by No Labels as security, and “Officer” James Pittman grabbed me from behind without warning, as Eddie joined in. The two of them worked in tandem, throwing me over a table, ala WWE Wrestling.
I was again thrown to the ground and roughed up some more by Deck. He was taken outside by the rent-a-cops who briefly detained him, then released him. When off of the property, I spoke to Sgt. Alan Aldenberg, and asked to press charges against Deck and his officers. Aldenberg walked back to his men, then came back and arrested me. This is what is known as a retaliatory arrest. Since the officers were in uniform, Deck was liable under color of law, 42 USC section 1983. Through respondeat superior, this makes Trump and the Campaign responsible for the actions of its employees. No Labels is also responsible for it’s employees, (the off-duty cops).
I spent a good chunk of 2016 proving my own innocence, and by 2018, I put forward a civil case, naming No Labels, the Manchester Police, Trump, Deck and all of their shell companies. On Jan 2nd, 2020, the court denying claims against the Radisson Hotel.
The good news is that as Vermin and I were arriving last night for Vermin’s appearance speaking to the New Hampshire Libertarian Party, I received an ORDER from the Judge saying that the core case against Eddie Deck and his shell company XMark was valid, and would move forward. Deck is being represented by Trump’s lawyers— and I’ve been holding off about a dozen of them since 2018, through 153 lengthy motions. In their defense, Trump’s lawyers cited a series of laws, which jointly claim a security guard for a presidential candidate can use lethal force to maintain decorum if they feel it is necessary.RSA 106-F:4, XIII allows unlicensed yahoos from out of state, traveling with national candidates to legally be called “security.” Coupled with RSA 627:5, III, such a person can use “Deadly force when he reasonably believes such to be necessary.” I guess I should be glad that Trump’s goons merely went WWE on me.
I approached State Representative Chris Balch about this troubling law, and Balch is working to get the law changed.
Though a number of my claims have been dismissed, they have been dismissed improperly. In the footnotes of pages 2-3 of the Judge’s order, (likely written by a court clerk), the court opines, “The appendices are comprised of information provided by Webber about some of the defendants and his communications with them.” The continue, “Webber did not provide copies of emails, videos, photos, articles, or documents. Therefore, the items referred to in the appendices do not provide evidence that can be considered by the court.”
Unfortunately, this incorrect statement by the court has been used as the basis to dismiss the vast majority of claims which have been dropped. We can simply look to document 75 in the case to the appendices section to see that all of the email correspondences between No Labels and the Manchester Police have been submitted in full. Moreover, links to videos were included, since physical DVDs or other media cannot be submitted to the court.
The Standard of Review in a civil case only requires that the Plaintiff allege facts. It is up to the jury to decide whether the facts presented by the Plaintiff are true. As stated by the Judge on page 2 of her order, “In considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court accepts the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and construes reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor,” citing Breiding v.Eversource Energy, 939 F.3d 47, 49 (1st Cir. 2019). The ORDER continues, “A claim is facially plausible ‘when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,’” citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
While this case might not seem like much in contrast to Trump’s impeachment, or his highly questionable assassination of an Iranian General on a diplomatic mission— if only the corporate media was paying attention to the case, they might have noticed that Trump was using it to say he can kill anyone anywhere— and for all we know, Mr. Trump is already working on stealing Vermin’s platform promise to execute all Americans. Only time will tell.
Read motions 1-153: