State v. Joseph Hart – Court Order and Response

This blog is made pursuant to NH Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6 (c) (2).

I am grateful to Judge Susan W. Ashley for her correct interpretation of District Court Rule 1.3D…  the rule that allows non-lawyer representatives to appear and litigate for another in a criminal case.  Find her ORDER here.

It’s worth noting that Judge Ashley is the Deputy Administrative Judge for the Circuit Court.  You cannot achieve that position without knowing the rules front to back.

Find my required response to her ORDER here.

State v. Joseph Hart – Criminal Defense Strategy

This blog is made pursuant to NH Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6 (c) (2).

Due to having filled out the court recording notice form multiple times prior in the same fashion as he did the day of his arrest, Joa informs the Court that his defense to the charge of Criminal Trespass is “Effect of Ignorance or Mistake” due to prior grants of permission to film after filling out the form “anonymous” by similarly situated court facilities.

The statue that specifies that defense is here.

Find the notice sent to the Court here.

State v. Joseph Hart – Update

The Attorney representing the Hillsborough, NH Police Department, Attorney George Wattendorf, has officially objected to my representing Joa.  He strikes me as a nice fellow.

Here is his objection.

Here is my response.

*UPDATE 03/19/24*

The State’s complaint for criminal trespass is here.

The State’s complaint for disorderly conduct is here.

State v. Joseph Hart – The Case Begins Tomorrow

This blog is made pursuant to NH Rules of Professional Conduct 3.6 (c) (2).  The case is also publicized pursuant to Part I, Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution as an attempt to “reform” the government by informing the public of the facts of the case.

Recently an activist named Joseph Hart, who goes by the name Joa, was arrested for filming in the Hillsborough, NH Circuit Court-District Division.  Joa is a past host of Free Talk Live and a freelance journalist who has a popular YouTube channel called Breaking The Flaw where he posted a video about his arrest.

I will be defending him as his non-lawyer representative.

Here are the first filings in the case, apologies that my scanner is not working 100%.  I’m working on getting that fixed.

(more…)

Attacking RSA 311:7

The long-held monopoly on the practice of law by licensed attorneys has indeed served to protect individuals requiring legal services from malpractice, but it has also served to protect the State from true challenges to its authority and practices.  Sometimes the system and its players are what should be lawfully challenged in court… but those beholden through tens of thousands of dollars in education investments to the good graces of judges may find themselves in a position where they cannot properly defend their clients.  This is why in New Hampshire I believe RSA 311:7, the prohibitor on allowing lay individuals to represent individuals, should be eliminated and the NH Bar Association’s monopoly on the practice of law dismantled.

As many of you may already know, I am not a lawyer.  I am a former law enforcement officer who has spent many hours studying law and listening to judicial oral arguments in efforts to better understand the American legal system and its function.  In 2011/2012 I was authorized to represent a journalist named Jason Talley in front of the Cheshire County Superior Court for charges stemming from his mere possession (not use) of a camera in a common area of a court.  Jason and I “won” the case together by attacking the system and individual judges for misconduct.  A licensed lawyer who regularly practices law in front of these judges most likely would be apprehensive to do the same out of fear of retribution from the very people who can control their law licenses or liberty interests of future clients.

As it stands now, a person of “good moral character” can practice law in New Hampshire so long as they don’t do it “commonly.”  What does “commonly” mean?  It seems to mean whatever the judge of the day thinks it means.

I believe this prohibition needs to be struck down…  and I believe this prohibition is in direct conflict with the New Hampshire Constitution, specifically Part I, Article 10.  That’s right…  it is my position that the NH Bar Association and NH Attorney General cannot monopolize and prohibit individuals from practicing law if they are intent on “reforming” the government through the codified Right of Revolution.

(more…)