by Garret Ean | Dec 15, 2011 |
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.
by Highline | Dec 13, 2011 |
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…)
by Highline | Dec 8, 2011 |
To the tragedy that just unfolded near the Virginia Tech campus.
Here is my reply:
(more…)
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 | 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.
by Ian | Nov 14, 2011 |
It has been over a year since liberty activists in Manchester launched FreeManch.com, and finally it looks like there is some life being blown into their site. Granted, it’s in response to Will May’s incisive piece posted here to FK, but at least they finally got the ball rolling.
Of course, they seemed to have the ball rolling a year ago before the site died.
For his first post, Manch’s Sovereign Curtis attacks Keene’s civil disobedience and cites the Manchester chalking arrests as an example of Manch’s superior civil disobedience scene. Of course he neglects to mention that the chalking event and the CopBlock event that he cites were started by Keeniacs Pete and Ademo of Liberty on Tour, on their visit to Manchester. Oops!
Rather than acknowledge those trail-blazing Keeniacs who have been doing civil disobedience and noncooperation for years, like Lauren Canario, the Trespassive Twelve, and Disobedient Seven, Curtis suggests Keene activists are a bunch of drunks. (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.
