by Highline | Dec 6, 2011 |
I have a very simple response to those who are calling me incorrect when I’ve repeatedly claimed that the University System of New Hampshire is a “political subdivision” and therefore has firearm and knife regulations that are illegal under New Hampshire law.
Well, actually, the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire and the University System of New Hampshire itself is the one with the response to this particular criticism. The response is found in University System of New Hampshire v. U.S. Gypsum 756 F.Supp. 640 (1991):
For purposes of this motion, the amount in controversy is not at issue. The issue is whether USNH is a citizen of the state of New Hampshire for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Defendants argue that USNH is a mere “arm” or “alter ego” of the state, and as such cannot be a citizen of New Hampshire for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff USNH contends that under New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (“RSA”) 187-A:1, it was established as a “body politic and corporate,”7 and thus, although it is a political subdivision of the state, it is not an “alter ego” of the state, and is therefore a citizen.
…
Based on its review of the status of USNH vis-a-vis the State of New Hampshire, the court finds that USNH is a governmental corporation of sufficient autonomy to escape designation as an alter ego of the state. USNH is therefore a citizen of New Hampshire, subject to the diversity jurisdiction of the federal court.
That’s right: the University System of New Hampshire argued in the United States District Court back in the early 90’s during an attempt to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction that it is a “political subdivision” of the State of New Hampshire. See section “c” of the statue I linked (28 USC 1332) to understand why USNH needed to be a “corporation” and not part of “the state” to proceed with their lawsuit. The court agreed with USNH’s argument.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind the University System of New Hampshire’s General Counsel (who will undoubedly be advising the Plymouth State University Police how to handle Tommy Mozingo and my information distribution on Friday) that this is still controlling law here in New Hampshire.
Quoting United States Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty in the 08/25/10 non-published opinion of John Collins, v. University of New Hampshire and Bruce L. Mallory (Civil No. 09-cv-78-LM) “While Univ. of N.H. vs. U.S. Gypsum Corp. is nearly 20 years old, it remains good law.”
To everyone who doesn’t speak state: I apologize for getting all legal-eezy on you about this. It unfortunately is necessary given the nature of the issue.
by Highline | Dec 5, 2011 |
The following is a press release regarding a information distribution Tommy Mozingo and I will be partaking in at Plymouth State University on 12/09/11. The intent of the information distribution is to call attention to the illegal regulations that the University System of New Hampshire has enacted to restrict self-defense rights by both students and public members.
(more…)
by Highline | Dec 2, 2011 |
Regarding my blog on 12/02/11 regarding the University System of New Hampshire illegally enforcing a firearm and knife ban, I recently was contacted by a government official who suggested I make you aware that quite openly in the media the University System of New Hampshire is claiming that they HAVE the authority to do what state law pretty clearly says they do not.
“New Hampshire is one of 25 states that allow individual campuses to set their own rules on weapons, though the policies are close to identical. All of the campuses ban firearms and most other weapons, and that’s the way education officials want it to stay.”
Incorrect. No political subdivision can regulate knives or firearms without the express permission of the NH General Court.
“Private businesses can put in place any rules about firearms they want, “but as long as UNH receives taxpayer money, they are a subdivision of the state and they are completely disregarding the law,” said Republican state Rep. J.R. Hoell of Dunbarton.
Exactly.
Check out the article here.
Sarah Palermo is the Concord Monitor reporter who has been covering the story.
by Highline | Nov 30, 2011 |
In our society, people between the ages of 18 and 21 are treated as second class citizens. On one hand, 18-20 year old adults are told that when they turn 18 they are adult enough to be forced to fight and die for the whims of politicians at the convenience of the Selective Service System. On the other hand, they are told that they essentially are stupid children who lack the ability to make responsible choices regarding when to consume alcohol. The irony of the latter is that when they do choose to consume alcohol in contravention of the law, they are punished as an adult, in adult court, for something that they have previously been deemed too childish to partake in.
Being between 18-20 years of age is also where most people embark on their higher education experience. Going to a college or university can be both fun, empowering of a bright future, and unfortunately, dangerous. As we who blog around here believe in individual responsibility, I believe that college students are adults whose liberty and freedom should be respected in such a manner so that they have both the natural and legal right to defend themselves on-campus or in their dorm if they were violently attacked.
Unfortunately for students and visitors of facilities of The University System of New Hampshire, there are rules that un-elected bureaucrats have handed down which purport that one cannot possess otherwise completely legal defensive weapons without facing severe consequences.
In my personal opinion, the rules that claim students and visitors at higher educational institutions like Keene State College, UNH-Durham, UNH-Manchester, Granite State College, and Plymouth State College cannot possess an otherwise legal knife or firearm are illegal, unenforceable, and contrary to established public policy.
Please allow me to make a case to you as to why.
(more…)
by Highline | Nov 28, 2011 |
In 11-years in law enforcement, I have been in front of my share of judges as a representative of the state. In my time as someone working towards greater freedom with the wonderful activists of the Free State Project I have seen my share of the system crashing down on people who commit victimless acts that are either prohibited by criminal law or the nearly whimsical common-law contempt power of a judge.
With this experience I feel I am in a fairly credible position to say that the judicial professionalism I witnessed under the supervision of Judge Lyons during the trial of State v. Garret Ean on 11/18/11 in Manchester, NH is the example that all judges and court security officers (CSO)/bailiffs in New Hampshire should strive to reach.
Before the trial began, a gentleman who appeared to be the supervisory CSO addressed the audience and asked politely that people turn their phone ringers off. As I looked around I saw something that rude CSO’s would rarely see: activists complying with this polite and reasonable request. During the trial Judge Lyons was extremely insightful and even helpful to Garret with interpreting and explaining the various rules of the circuit court system. He also went well out of his way to either respect the rights of and/or ignore Pete Eyre’s wearing of a Cop Block baseball hat on the stand as he testified.
I hope other judges and CSO’s in this state learn to exhibit as much respect to pro se liberty activist type litigants as Judge Lyons and his subordinate CSO’s did.
Who knows, maybe even the Judicial Branch in New Hampshire is starting to figure out how to deal with liberty activists without the headache: show respect and ignore things that really don’t matter.
