Highline

Defense Filed Documents in State v. Jason Talley

by Highline | Mar 23, 2012 | 14 comments

– Defendant’s response to the State’s response to the Defendant’s response to the State’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas

NH Attorney General Responds To Jason Talley’s Objection To His Motion To Quash Judges Subpoenas

by Highline | Mar 21, 2012 | 37 comments

– Reply to Def’s Objection to Motion to Quash

The original objection is here.

Jason Talley Asserts Part I, Article 10 “Right To Revolution” To Require Judges Be Held Accountable

by Highline | Mar 19, 2012 | 24 comments

– Response to the New Hampshire Attorney General interceding in State v. Jason Talley by requesting the Cheshire County Superior Court “Quash” subpoenas of New Hampshire Circuit Court Administrative Judge Edwin Kelley and New Hampshire Superior Court Chief Judge Tina Nadeau .PDF

Twelve Years Ago in New Hampshire Judicial Branch Corruption …

by Highline | Mar 18, 2012 | 4 comments

On April 1st 2012 it will have been twelve years since the New York Times ran this article that the New Hampshire Judicial Branch would probably rather you not be aware of, given my nearly full-time efforts to once again hold them accountable.

A State Supreme Court justice illegally tried to influence his colleagues in his own divorce case, and the chief justice broke the law by listening to him, the state’s attorney general said today.

The announcement by Attorney General Philip T. McLaughlin led to the resignation of the justice, Stephen Thayer, and raised doubts about the future of Chief Justice David Brock.
(more…)

NH Attorney General Gets Involved In State v. Jason Talley

by Highline | Mar 16, 2012 | 27 comments

The New Hampshire Attorney General has filed an appearance and motion on behalf of Circuit Court Administrative Judge Edwin Kelley and Superior Court Chief Judge Tina Nadeau. The motion is to “quash” the subpoenas that they have been served with by the Merrimack County Sheriffs Department which require them to appear as witnesses in State v. Jason Talley.

From the motion:

6. The Defendant has copies of the three orders at issue. If the trial court deems the orders themselves relevant and admissible evidence, they can be admitted as trial exhibits by the proferring party. Testimony from judges regarding their mental process leading up to the issuance of their orders, however, is prohibited and properly excluded.

(more…)