According to Sarah Palermo at the Concord Monitor:
Students at Plymouth State University will be excused from the last day of classes tomorrow if they feel anxious about a planned pro-gun-rights protest. (more…)
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.
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.
On Friday, Nov. 25, 2011, Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia sent out a press release stating that the Occupiers have 48 hours to evacuate their encampment. This is not the first time. Notices like this one have been put out in the past weeks, but police refused to enforce the evictions. I went down to Philadelphia to ask the cops what they will do.
(more…)
Ademo Freeman went on trial last Monday in Manchester district court to answer to the charges of criminal mischief and resisting arrest. Ademo was the first of the Chalking 8 arrests made outside the police station during a police accountability rally on June 4. At least 17 supporters and members of independent media were present to witness as the state presented its case against Ademo, with five city of Manchester employees speaking in favor of the state.
Before the proceedings were underway, there was much conversation between liberty activists present and the representatives of the state. As these interactions were being filmed by various camera-wielding individuals, bailiffs approached those with cameras visible and handed them an order signed by the judge that limited recording to the duration of the trial itself. The order effectively banned pre and post trial interviews and interactions, which are often recorded when activists are due in court. The move was likely motivated by an interaction on camera which occurred outside courtroom #201 following my own trial three days prior.
At about 1:30, the event was to get underway when the defendant asked the status of two pretrial motions he had filed. Judge William Lyons indicated that he had denied both motions previously. Ademo responded that he would be ready to proceed after reading the judge’s ruling on the motions, and after a short recess, prosecutor Gregory Muller called his first witness.
When I checked my voicemail earlier today, I had received a call from Keene City Prosecutor, Chris McLaughlin. He dropped my Disorderly Conduct charges, for which I planned to attend trial tomorrow. This is welcome news, indeed.
Recent Forum Posts
