Felon, State Rep Removed from Criminal Justice Committee

State Representative Max Abramson

State Representative and FSP Participant Max Abramson

Free State Project early mover Max Abramson’s felony conviction was no secret during his campaign for State Representative in 2014 and he won anyway.

His felony conviction he has is total BS, but most mainstream reporting on his removal from the state house Criminal Justice committee ignores his side of the story and treats him like all felons are created equal. Max was convicted of a felony for firing a gun INTO THE GROUND to break up a fight at a party thrown by his roommates at the time. No one was harmed or in any danger whatsoever from his actions.

Now, because of political correctness, the new speaker of the house, Shawn Jasper (a former cop) has removed Max from his appointment to the Criminal Justice committee. Ironically, Max is one of the most qualified to be on that committee, having experienced the state’s idea of “justice” from the inside.

Here’s a Seacoast Online story about him being booted. Max will continue to be a state rep and will likely be one of the better, more liberty-friendly reps. I’m looking forward to seeing what changes he brings to the table.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


86 Comments

  1. we can disagree there on the fact that no one was in danger from him discharging a firearm in to the ground with other people around.

  2. His conviction is the result of a jury trial, not by some politically appointed judge so saying his felony conviction is total BS shows the author doesn’t believe in justice,

    People that reject jury decisions don’t belong on criminal justice committees.

  3. it’s bs because they don’t agree with it. a normal person could see the danger he placed others in with his actions.

  4. I read the article about the week long trial and I’m not arrogant enough to know what a normal person would see because I didn’t see the evidence the jury did so I’m left with accepting what the jury decided, which I hope qualify as normal people. 🙂

  5. to fire a gun around others is a dangerous situation that can be avoided. i have been around people fighting and you grab the bastard and throw him to the side.

  6. “No one was harmed or in any danger whatsoever from his actions.”

    LOL. What a fucking moron you are, Bernard.

  7. No, this is about a felon serving on the criminal justice committee, fuckhead.

  8. ” I’m looking forward to seeing what changes he brings to the table.”

    Ah, that would be none. He’s a felon and has also got the stench of the FSP upon him. That makes him politically radioactive and irrelevant. No one is going to want to have anything to do with him at the State House.

  9. He fired a gun into the ground and endangered lives, moron.

  10. he discharged a firearm around a group of people, how is that the right thing to do?

  11. Ugh….. You’re giving us opinion when you don’t even have the most basic facts. Using your reasoning he would have been found guilty on all counts (he was facing multiple felony charges) and he would have had MULTIPLE felonies instead of just one.

    That’s WHY we have laws, courts, and a jury to determine what “normal” people decide, (apparently you’re not normal. 🙂 )

  12. yes it is my opinion that firing a gun around people even into the ground, presents a dangerous hazard.

    but what other felonies was he facing if you would please enlighten us?

    i do like that i am somehow not normal (your opinion) yet i know how dangerous firearms can be and are.

  13. The other felony charges also stem from his firing a gun around other people and presenting a dangerous hazard, Which is WHY I said your reasoning is flawed.

    The only enlightening I’m going to do is point out that you weren’t smart enough to Google the case like I did and get some basic facts before making a fool out of yourself.

  14. You’ve given us a tiny fraction of the details. The trial lasted a week and I can assure you the jury heard the same tape, they obviously had access to a lot more information than you have, so what makes you think you know more than a jury of 12 people?

  15. Never gone shooting in a group? As long as the firearm was handled safely and discharged in a safe direction, there isn’t a problem. Nobody was alleged to have been injured by his activity. Typically when I shoot, there’s anywhere from 2-20 people within shouting distance. Nobody has ever been injured (I’ve been shooting since I was 8, I’m in my 30s now) nor have I been arrested for it. BTW, Police officers frequently discharge their firearms around throngs of people and sometimes hit innocents (which Max did not do) and you don’t seem to oppose that. We had a local cop where I work discharge his entire magazine on Main St at a speeding car that he alleged tried to hit him, and only 1 round hit the car. Where did the rest of those rounds end up? That guy didn’t face any charges and kept his job.

    What’s the point of having a handgun if your not allowed to use it in defense of self or others? This scenario is the best case scenario where a handgun was used to defend someone (with the exception of a felony conviction) as evidenced by a lack of physical injury. Did he get lucky? Maybe, but you’re just Monday morning quarterbacking this whole thing.

  16. Juries (of all types) in America are led along by their noses by the prosecution. “[If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would] indict a ham sandwich.” ~Sol Wachtler

  17. since you’ve been shooting since you were 8, have you ever fired a round into the ground around a group of people or do you fire it in a safe direction downrange? you’re trying to make excuses for him when there is none to be had.

  18. firing a gun around a group of people into the ground is a reckless act, something a normal person would not do. you need to enlighten yourself in firearm safety.

  19. so who was in danger of being murdered?

  20. A lot of times the ground is the backstop for the “range.” Firing into an uphill slope is considered safe while firing off the edge of a cliff would not be. You seem to be discounting the direction of the muzzle in relation to the group. Also, you’re showing your ignorance as far as firearms go. What is the safest direction to point the muzzle of firearm that’s not in use and why, Chad?

    Travel north on NH route 10 from Keene and when you get to Lempster keep an eye out on the right hand side of the road near Jolly Roger. You’ll see a group of targets and plywood all torn up right off the side of the road where hundreds of cars go by daily. The targets are set up in a gravel pit with the GROUND as a backstop. They shoot away from the road into the GROUND and I’ve driven by while they were firing. This has gone on for years. Police officers drive by daily. Nobody has been arrested or injured. Why there? I don’t know anyone who’s involved in this operation but it’s my assessment that it is a safe place to shoot and it’s likely why this location was chosen.

  21. Chad why do you keep making non sequiturs? Because I exposed your ignorance?

  22. If you actually believe that then you have the brain of a ham sandwich.

  23. LOL … moron. Seriously – you have no fucking clue. Do you shoot rounds into the ground with people standing around? If you did at my range we would kick you out, not before we kicked your ass, however.

  24. “Also, you’re showing your ignorance as far as firearms go.”

    Um, that would be you, dickhead.

  25. You do understand that there is a significant difference between a grand jury and a jury in a jury trial. Your quote is irrelevant to this because a grand jury need not be presented or consider the defense. Max had a full opportunity to present his defense to the jury. You do realize that juries acquit defendants all the time, don’t you?

  26. Don’t confuse poor Jeb with the facts, Richard. Considering his limited IQ he’s working as hard as he can just to get through each day, so adding more to his plate will just stress him out.

  27. Abramson is also a “former cop” … and was actively a cop when he pulled that stunt. A better article might be one pointing out that, in NH, even cops are sometimes held accountable when they recklessly discharge their weapons, endangering others.

    Firing into unprepared ground is quite reckless, here in the “Granite State,” which is aptly named. Ricochets are a very real danger. The berm at a range has been prepared for such use by removal of rocks (or, by adding rock-frer fill over the existing ground – in either case, bullet-rock interactions are avoided), so there is no comparison.

    Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Freestaters are sensible enough to denounce such behavior, which is why Abramson has received virtually no support. If anyone at that party chose to seek restitution from him for threatening their lives, the would probably be cheered-on by the majority of Freestaters.

  28. Not if I had a safer option, like at a range, shit dick. Internet tough is how you roll. And if I were being threatened as in this case, I would plug the threat not shoot the ground but it’s not my call to make for someone else.

  29. Go ahead an point out what’s wrong with I said instead of hurling insults. You sound like some city slicker motherfucker that thinks the only acceptable use for a firearm is at a proper range. You’re just a fucking internet arm chair quarterback fucking moron. Get a fucking life. At least Chad is having an honest conversation about his opinions, you on the other hand…

    The way you morons talk, you would think hunting was the riskiest activity one could participate in. I mean all the misses are bouncing off of rocks and such must be taking people out left and right.

  30. I do understand those things but to say people are acquitted all the time in a system where there is more than a 99% conviction rate is disingenuous. I’d be curious to know just how many juries have acquitted people accused of felonies involving a firearm. I’d be willing to bet it’s less than 10%, regardless of facts.

    The American judicial system is corrupt whether or not you choose to ignore it.

  31. Apparently jeb would prefer to have corrupt judges deciding people’s fates.

  32. Are you insinuating that there was a corrupt jury in Max’s case? and if so what solution do you propose?

  33. Not at all. It’s more than likely a corrupt judge in collusion with a corrupt prosecutor giving inaccurate instructions to the jury.

  34. Not at all. It’s more than likely a corrupt judge in collusion with a corrupt prosecutor giving inaccurate instructions to the jury.

    Juries in America just do what they’re told, for the most part.

  35. As with most other wrongful convictions, evidence was kept out. The jury never heard evidence of the woman chasing my housemate with a hatchet screaming that she was going to kill him for calling the police nor of the dozens of violent criminal convictions and outstanding warrants against them. They never heard about the numerous violent crimes committed by those same criminals after Seabrook police let them go. Jurors were heard yelling in deliberations, which went on for five hours. That is not the tone of people who gave anyone the benefit of the doubt.

  36. Would you prefer that I stand back and let people get stabbed?

  37. Chad, all of the witnesses at trial stated that there was no one in the backyard, and that it was lit out there. The jury was judicially noticed that it was a full moon out. Merely discharging a round into one’s backyard is no more than a violation, which results in a few hours of community service–not eight felonies. On the other hand, Seabrook police wrote in their reports and testified on the stand that they had physical evidence and eye witness statements of one or more attempted murders during the brawl. Are we required to stand back and let people get stabbed?

  38. I assume you appealed the faulty evidentiary rulings, but then again, that evidence may have been irrelevant to the reckless discharge of your weapon.

  39. OK anonymous “guest” – I see now it’s the fault of a conspiracy between a corrupt judge, a corrupt prosecutor an incompetent defense lawyer and a bunch of ignorant sheep as a jury.

  40. Right out of cases that see a jury but most cases never even go to trial in the US because people are threatened with 1000 years behind bars unless they take this sweet deal for probation. Prosecutor pads his conviction rate and then runs for DA touting how tough on crime he is.

    Then they need to hire probation officers, which increases budgets and union dues, so they can keep you on a super tight leash. So tight, in fact, that if you get caught drinking a beer you VOP and go to jail, which isn’t illegal but is a VOP which you were coerced into by the possibility of losing the next 50 years of your life. More prosecutors and judges will be needed to sort these out. Then they need to hire more prison guards with even bigger budgets and more union dues. Bigger multi-million dollar jails will be needed for this and the county commissioners buddy in construction needs work. Repeat.

  41. “Juries in America just do what they’re told, for the most part”

    and what exactly do think they are told to do? and how do you know?

    You do know that Max was charged with multiple felonies and the jury only convicted him with one? So you’re going to have us believe that the judge and the prosecutor told them to ignore all but one of the charges that they attempted to prosecute him for.

    I hope you know you sound like an idiot.

  42. It’s pretty commonplace. I don’t even think that they know they are doing it. It’s just how the system works now. They aren’t there to administer justice as much as they are there to collect a paycheck and get convictions. I truly think these people thinks it’s their job to convict people. That’s a problem.

  43. Sorry Max if we don’t take the word of the very person whose actions are at the center of the controversy.

    Since when are juries supposed to give defendants the benefit of the doubt? I thought they were supposed to decide based on the evidence presented.

    It’s likely that the yelling you heard was done in your favor resulting in the dismissal of some of the charges against you resulting in a single felony charge instead of multiple felonies.

  44. jeb,
    What evidence do you have it is commonplace?
    You haven’t presented a single piece of evidence to back up a single accusation that you’ve made.

    You’re the last person to listen to when comes to administering justice, you sound exactly like that corrupt prosecutor that you complain about wanting us to convict the system of being corrupt without presenting any evidence.

    In short you are the person that you are complaining about, look in the mirror hypocrite.

  45. When are you going to post evidence on an internet blog to back up your assertions? Are you even being serious?

    Yeah, why don’t I just purchase the $5000 transcripts for every case tried for a month in NH and sort through them all so we can have lunch together someday and I’ll present my case to you? OK. See you there.

    Or I could spend my time playing with my kids, or fixing my house.

    All I’m really saying is that, as a human, you’re more likely to favor a co-worker or someone you interact with daily than you are a total stranger in any scenario where it’s he said she said, so to speak. Certainly that holds true in an adversarial contest of sorts. Judges are no different. And lawyers are just more likely to lie than other people.

  46. “in a system where there is more than a 99% conviction rate”

    Jeb, are you trying to be a comedian?

Care to comment?