Should NH courts be open and accessible or will they remain censored?
Censorship, even if done for the best of intentions, subsumes the initiation of force – something experienced by individuals seeking transparency at Keene district court and Cheshire Co. superior court. On Friday, Dec. 16, 2011 at the NH supreme court the “rules committee” took comment to determine whether they will “allow” you and me to film their actions.
Free Keene blogger Derrick J Freeman makes national news with an AP article on his illegal haircutting. Multiple disobedience arrests, his own youtube channel, and now national news – Derrick J is in my opinion the activist of the year. He arrived in Keene in 2011, hit the ground running, and hasn’t stopped. Thank you Derrick for all you do for liberty. Here’s the AP piece:
CONCORD, N.H.—Anyone handy with scissors and a blow-dryer could set up shop in New Hampshire without the state’s formal blessing if an effort to eliminate education and licensing requirements for a host of occupations is successful.
Cosmetologists, barbers and a handful of others in state-licensed occupations would no longer need to go to school or get a license to work under the bill facing a vote in the House early next year that makes the licenses voluntary.
Derrick Freeman, a 22-year-old unlicensed hairdresser from Keene, said his customers’ satisfaction should determine if he can work, not a state license. (more…)
Yesterday I was arraigned on three counts of felony wiretapping – click here to read about Pete’s and my year long fight on MA wiretapping charges. If convicted I face anywhere from 11.5 to 21 years in prison and up to $12,000 in fines. I say IF because the only way I’ll be convicted is if the state (the system itself) protects it’s own. The three people claiming that I wire tapped them are public officials, whom I recorded while acting in their “public” capacities, but we’ll get more into that as we approach trial. (more…)
This is a video of 5 activists rolling into the Keene Police Department on Dec. 6, 2011 with cameras and tickets. They all want their day in court so that they can remind their accusers that there is no victim.
(more…)
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.
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.
Recent Forum Posts
