How many times have you heard someone say this?

"If you get in an accident, and you know you've been drinking, go someplace close by and, in view of many witnesses, proclaim how distraught you are from the event and pound several stiff drinks. THEN, go back to the scene."

And of course, the thought being that, at best, the cops can charge you with leaving the scene of an accident and you'll get off of a sure DWI charge. But, does anybody actually know anybody that has successfully gotten away with such a scheme?

Then there's the trick of rescheduling court dates at the last minute in the hope that the arresting officer will be a no-show, and you'll get off due to that technicality.

Again, despite many prayers and wishes for such luck helping the accused, the reality is that it really doesn't happen all that often... Unless, of course, you're a member of the law enforcement community. Then, all bets are off...

The proof was in the lead story in the September 13 NH Union Leader:

Police Officer Benjamin Beauchemin never lost his driving privileges, despite refusing a Breathalyzer sobriety test after an off-duty car crash last spring.

Beauchemin instead fought to keep his license at a state motor vehicle hearing and prevailed on a technicality when the investigating state trooper failed to show up, apparently because of a court conflict.

See? How fortunate for Officer Beauchemin that a fellow cop somehow just couldn't make it for his hearing. How many times does that happen when it's just an ordinary citizen?

At a rehearing, Trooper Nick Cyr's reason for missing the Beauchemin hearing was deemed insufficient to reopen the case, allowing Beauchemin to keep his license, Curtis Duclos, hearings administrator for the state Department of Safety, said yesterday.

Beauchemin this week was found not guilty in Candia District Court on a driving while intoxicated charge from the May 11 crash.

Beautiful, isn't it? And here's the rest of the story:

Beauchemin has admitted to having one beer before the crash.

He also has said he left the scene of the crash to go to his girlfriend's home, two doors down from the site, where he had four more to calm his nerves.

He later returned to the crash scene, where court records show he refused the sobriety test.

Does anybody think that the above scenario would have happened were Beauchemin just an ordinary, unpriviledged citizen? How much legal expenses were incured on this? Again, Joe Sixpack, in most instances cannot afford the astronomical costs necessary to properly fight a DWI charge. In this story, with Beauchemin's brothers in the law enforcement and other NH gov't communities doing their part for him, it most likely didn't cost him much more than what can be earned back in a few hours of "detail work."

"To Protect and Serve"

(one another, that is...)

When it's ordinary folks, this, this, and this is the normal procedure. Wake up NH!!! The "Live Free or Die" state is rapidly becoming the "Police State". I don't understand how a people that rejects REAL ID as too intrusive on freedom and privacy then turns around and allows the police to get away with what they do here in the Granite State.

..

Posted by Doug at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BELKNAP, SS                                                                                  

SUPERIOR COURT
Doug Lambert and Thomas A. Tardif
v.
Belknap County Convention
No. 07-E-0140
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
            NOW COMES the petitioners Doug Lambert, ProSe and Thomas A Tardif, ProSe motion for reconsideration in the above entitled matter, and in support thereof, the Petitioners say as follows:
            “A motion for reconsideration allows a party to present ‘points of law or fact that the court has overlooked or misapprehended.’” Barrows v. Boles, 141 N.H. 382, 397 (1996)

            The parties provided the Court with all relevant dates and documents pertaining to Petitioner’s right-to-know request in its petition and at hearing.  For the following reasons, the motion for reconsideration should be granted;

Fact and Law

1.      The court acknowledged that ‘On 29 May 2007, the Convention met to discuss the vacancy created in the Office of Belknap County Sheriff, occasioned by the resignation of Sheriff Dan Collis. The Convention voted to go into a nonpublic session pursuant to RSA 91-A:2 to discuss the process for filling the vacancy.(Emphasis added)

 

 

Continue reading "Breaking News: Petitioners file "Motion for Reconsideration" in Belknap County Right-to-Know suit." »

Posted by Doug at 2:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

"the violation of the specific command of RSA 91-A is plain and indisputable. The county delegation should have known that a secret ballot vote in a public session violated that Right-to-Know law on its face."

While the Convention has, without question, violated the Right-to-Know law with respect to the secret ballot decision to appoint Wiggin as Sheriff, the Convention would have been well within its rights to conduct the entire process of selecting the Sheriff in nonpublic sessions. RSA 91-A:3, II (b). The exeption for hiring public employees allows those matters to "be considered and acted upon in nonpublic session..." (Emphasis added.) In this sense, the Convention went further than the Right-to-Know law required, conducting interviews with the two final candidates in public and voting at the public session, albeit by secret ballot.

The County Convention specifically proceeded in the manner provided by RSA 91-A:2,II. There is a good public policy reason for the process to be exempted. The process protects and limits animosity being created in which an "elected' individual choosen to fill the unexpired term may not personalize their election in subsequent engagements between that official and the County Convention which authorizes the individual department's budget. Further, as the Convention is a partisan group of representatives, the authorized exemption of the secret ballot election takes the taint of partisan politics out oof the process.

“Matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the body or agency itself,… .”  (Emphasis Added).

Continue reading "Details on our Right-to-Know lawsuit [UPDATED]" »

Posted by Doug at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

NO SHAME AND NO SENSE 

In an Op-Ed in the February 2nd Union Leader, ersatz Republican Mark Carter called for a grand compromise on education funding:  a constitutional amendment that allows “targeted aid,” but that also “allows for legal action should the state ever abuse its obligation to our communities.”  Now I’m just as opposed to obligation abuse as the next person, but think for a minute about what this lovely euphemism means.  It means that whenever anyone doesn’t like the result produced by democracy, he can run into court and sue to get his way. 

.

Ersatz Republican Carter claims that this “preserves the checks and balances power of the judicial branch.”  What poppycock.  The way that our system of government is supposed to work is that in matters of policy, and that includes education funding, we are supposed to attempt to persuade each other, and then decide the issue by voting.  We are not supposed to sue each other.   

.

Carter’s amendment would also write into the State Constitution the canard that the quality of public education is determined by the amount we spend on public education as it requires the State to provide financial assistance whenever a school district lacks the “fiscal capacity” to provide the “opportunity for an adequate education.”  This myopic approach ignores that a variety of factors affect education performance besides spending.  These include the competence of administrators, the quality of teachers, the talent and motivation of students and the involvement of parents.  Because of these variables, the cost of an “adequate education” varies not just by school district, but by student.  This means that in order to reliably calculate the cost of an “adequate education” the calculation must be done on a student-by-student basis and the calculation must account for the particular effect of non-financial variables on each student’s performance. 

.

For this and other reasons, defining an “adequate education” and determining its cost is the proverbial fool’s errand.  Yet Carter would make this fool’s errand a permanent part of the State Constitution.  What Carter and his ilk apparently don’t understand is that the State does not have an education funding problem it has dysfunctional government. 

.

Continue reading "Education funding problem? No. Dysfunctional governement? Yes." »

Posted by Doug at 9:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The new sexual Predators Act will pressure judges to impose a 25-year minimum sentence on people who sexually assault children under 13, but the sentence will not be mandatory.

When judges choose a shorter sentence, they will have to explain, taking into account such factors as the age of the victim, the use of force and the relationship between victim and assailant.

Second offenders who rape young victims or hurt them badly will face life life without parole. Predators who murder children will get 35 years to life.

Posted by Doug at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Useful Idiots by Ed Mosca

Lenin is credited with coining the term “useful idiots,” which he supposedly used to refer to supporters of the Soviet Union living in Western democracies.  They were idiots because they unwittingly were supporting a cause that would destroy the freedoms and prosperity they enjoyed under democratic governments.  When it comes to education funding, the term fits those candidates running for State office who want to define an adequate education “so the Supreme Court doesn’t do it for us.” 

.

Obviously, their line of thinking is predicated on the notion that, if only the Legislature and Governor “finally” were to define an adequate education, the Court would then defer to this definition and the corresponding determination of the cost.  A brief history lesson is in order because, as the saying goes, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.   

.

The Court first asserted that the representative branches needed to define an adequate education in Claremont I, which was issued in 1993.  It provided no guidelines for doing so, telling the representative branches that they were free to choose from a “wealth of historical data … spanning more than three hundred years.”

.

Despite over 200 years of history and precedent to the contrary, the representative branches took at face value this absolutely incredible proposition that the words a “duty to cherish public schools” were really code for a “duty to define an adequate education,” and through the State Board of Education defined an adequate education.  And how did the Court respond?  Only four years later, in Claremont II, it ruled the State Board’s definition was unconstitutional, claiming that it did not “sufficiently reflect the letter or spirit of the State Constitution’s mandate.” 

.

What’s more, no longer were the representative branches free to define an adequate education based on a “wealth of historical data.”  Now the constitution required the definition to be based upon seven “aspirational guidelines” articulated in a 1986 decision by the Supreme Court of Kentucky.

.

Rather than asking the obvious question what the aspirations of Kentuckian judges could possibly have to do with the New Hampshire constitution, the Legislature and Governor virtually bent over backwards to comply with Claremont II.  Committees were formed, forums were convened and experts were consulted.  Ultimately, a study prepared by Augenblick & Myers was used to set the cost of an adequate education.
. 
And then what happened? The Claremont plaintiffs immediately returned to court, claiming that the Legislature had not correctly calculated the cost of an adequate education.  Among other things, they claimed that the formula didn’t use the proper assessment tests to gauge student performance and didn’t contain enough money for transportation and capital costs. 

Continue reading ""Useful Idiots" by Ed Mosca" »

Posted by Doug at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

7 South State Street                Concord, NH 03301             603/224-4450        Fax 603/224-4329                 jbartlett@jbartlett.org

Four Governors call for amendment

Sununu, Gregg, Merrill, Benson unite to support amendment to protect New Hampshire’s competitive advantage

Four Governors who led the state for a combined 16 years have come together to support a constitutional amendment to make sure the people’s representatives decide education policy and to fight the threat of an income tax. According to Center President Charlie Arlinghaus, having the four come together is a sign of how important the education funding issue is and the dramatic impact it will have on the future of the state we love. Statements from each of the four governors follow.

Craig Benson (Governor 2003-2005): “The New Hampshire Advantage includes education decisions made as close to the people as possible and a tax system that encourages jobs and economic development. After the most recent court decision, we must act immediately to preserve local control of education. A state takeover of education means input from parents, PTAs and school boards will be a thing of the past. Any candidate that doesn’t support an amendment condemns us to job-destroying taxes and the end of New Hampshire’s economic advantage. We need an amendment today to let the voters have a chance to speak.”

Posted by Doug at 8:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

a small band of lifetime-appointed unelected lawyers with black robes have once again trampled upon the votes and decisions of the state legislature- the duly elected representatives of the people.

TWO ALL BEEF PATTIES, SPECIAL SAUCE, LETTUCE, CHEESE, PICKLES, ONIONS ON A SESAME SEED BUN

by Ed Mosca, Esquire

 The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s latest education funding decision is simply a political manifesto camouflaged as constitutional law.  The Court’s stated reason for striking down the latest funding law was that the other branches had not passed an acceptable definition of an adequate education.  But where in the Constitution does it say that the Legislature and Governor must define an adequate education, let alone a definition acceptable to the Supreme Court?  Certainly not in Part II, Article 83, the supposed source of the duty to define an adequate education.  Article 83 simply says that “it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools.”   

.

The Court has never explained how this language obligates the representative branches to pass legislation defining an adequate education.  Prior supreme courts never interpreted this language to create such a duty.  In fact, the first time the notion of a constitutional right to an adequate education ever appeared in a supreme court decision was in Claremont I in 1993, which was more than 200 years after Part II, Article 83 was enacted.  

.

While one would never know it from reading the Claremont decisions, defining an adequate education is one of many legitimate policy approaches to delivering public education.  For example, it certainly is arguable that a better way to deliver public education is to allow school districts or individual schools to develop their own curriculums and policies.  Another arguably superior policy approach is to force public schools to improve by allowing school choice.   

.

The Constitution leaves it to the Legislature and the Governor to determine which of these and other education policies to use to cherish the public schools.  So for the Court to say that throughout the Claremont litigation it has deferred to the representative branches regarding education policy is pure poppycock.  Whether to enact a statewide definition of an adequate education is every bit as much a policy choice as how to write such a definition. 

.

The Court’s contention in its latest Claremont decision that it has consistently deferred to the representative branches regarding the “substantive content of a constitutionally adequate public education” is also pure poppycock.  The Court has never refrained from weighing in on what the definition of an adequate education should look like.

.

Continue reading "Judicial reason in NH: "Pure Poppycock"" »

Posted by Doug at 8:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Concord – A superior court judge handed a victory yesterday to Londonderry, Nashua and 16 other school districts, ruling the state’s latest school funding plan is unconstitutional.

.

Justice William Groff ruled that past New Hampshire Supreme Court rulings in Claremont cases make it clear the new law, contained in House Bill 616, fails to clear even the first of four hurdles the courts set for the Legislature.

.

“The Legislature has completely failed to fulfill its constitutional duty,” to define a constitutionally adequate education, Groff ruled. As for determining the cost of an adequate education, he said, the Legislature, “has abdicated its duty.”

Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.

Concord – For the first time in 25 years of New Hampshire education funding battles, the state Supreme Court yesterday threatened to take over the system and impose its own solution.

.

Ruling on a suit by a coalition of school districts led by Londonderry and Merrimack, the five-member court unanimously agreed the current system is unconstitutional because it fails to give an understandable, practical definition of an adequate education. That makes it impossible to determine whether the state is paying the full cost of adequacy, as it is required to do under the state constitution, the court said.

.

A three-member majority said if the state fails to fix the system by June 30, 2007, it will then "be required to take further action to enforce" the constitutional mandates itself, possibly by appointing a special court master to "aid" in creating an acceptable definition of educational adequacy.

A ruler with absolute power...a dictator- a ruler who is unconstrained by law

they are incapable of carrying on any war. Either they arm the multitude, and then they are more afraid of them than of the enemy; or, if they do not call them out in the hour of battle, they are oligarchs indeed, few to fight as they are few to rule.

Posted by Doug at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I really hope this is brought to the Supremes and is overturned quickly, for if it is not, we are ALL in big trouble.  Right now, the Ninth Circuit Court has handed down a ruling that will start / allow affirmative action in terms of limiting free speech.  From TCS Daily is this:

Big, big mistake.  Where in the First Amendment are these criteria listed?  You think the PC crowd gets their knickers in a knot about those of us who, while trying to be polite, don't care if we tick off our listeners or readers?  This could shut us bloggers down rather quickly. 

No, this is not teaching tolerance - this avenue leads to demanding acceptance. 

Continue reading "Praying to be overturned" »

Posted by Skip at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)