State vs. Garret Ean: Waiting on a Grade

As of Monday, December 12, it was confirmed that the court had received homework assignments from both parties in the case of State v. Garret Ean. At the end of the trial, the judge had asked for legal memos to support arguments made by both sides. Though I would have much preferred a ruling on the spot, in retrospect I am glad that the judge gave me a chance to formulate written arguments to demonstrate the State’s lack of a case. Just through questioning John Patti, I was only able to reveal so much about the case. The memo assignment enabled relevant details to be organized into a single presentation.

The prosecutor’s memo struck me with its unnecessary thickness. The memo was organized to the extent that it begins with legal arguments, but more than half of the final documents in the 79 page submission are completely irrelevant details obtained from house and senate hearings on the disorderly conduct statute in 2005. Much like the discovery packet, and a great portion of the Chalking 8 case itself, the State is throwing papers at the problem until one of them addresses the issue. With more Chalking 8 trials on the horizon, the State’s evidence will grow flimsier as the first not-guilty findings begin being issued. Rulings are expected to roll in around the new year.

See my two page memo striking to the root of the matter, and Attorney Greg Muller’s legalese composition below.

Defendant’s Memo of Law 2 page .pdf
Prosecutor’s Memo of Law 79 page .pdf

Pete Eyre, arrested at the same time as myself and who also has already had his trial, has uploaded both his own memo as well as Greg Muller’s 44 page memo from that case, which addresses different issues than were raised in mine.

Oxford-Style Debate Challenge to Colonel Creig W. Doyle of Plymouth State University Police

As the entire nation is now aware, Tommy Mozingo and I are presently litigating the illegal restrictions on self-defense that the University System of New Hampshire has enacted on students, parents, alumni, and public members. In the Grafton County Superior Court on 12/13/11 USNH argued that it has authority to enact “policies” that are not “regulations” and therefore they are exempt from the State of New Hampshire’s firearm preemption law and perhaps even the New Hampshire Constitution.

I vehemently disagree… and so do members of the New Hampshire General Court.

Under Plymouth State University “policy” there is one man who can allow non-criminals to possess firearms for self-defensive purposes, and that man is Colonel Creig W. Doyle, PSU’s Police Chief. I hereby publicly challenge Colonel Doyle to an Oxford-style debate on the following motion: “Firearms and knives should be allowed on campus for self-defensive purposes.

I propose using the Intelligence² US Debates modified Oxford rules format and that Colonel Doyle and I both choose two additional people to join our team in debating the motion.

This is a public policy debate worth having… and I would encourage the Colonel to step up and publicly defend the position he enforces.

Oh… and don’t forget to read New Hampshire’s largest newspaper’s response to USNH/PSU’s massive overreaction to our self-defense rights protest.

Open Letter From NH State Representative JR Hoell

The following is a letter penned by New Hampshire State Representative JR Hoell addressed to the House Judiciary Committee. The letter is in response to the way Tommy Mozingo and I were treated as we attempted to point out that the University System of New Hampshire was violating the law by maintaining regulations which forbid the peaceful carrying of firearms and knives.

I’ve spoken to several elected officials and Rep. Hoell isn’t the only one who feels this way. Elected state officials will be present at our hearing today in the Grafton County Superior Court at 2:30PM to see how Judge Vaughn respects the state constitution as well as legislative authority.

A big thank you to Rep. Hoell for taking the time to write, publicize, and take on this issue!

(more…)