GraniteGrok has been publishing Dan’s legal pleas seeing redress of grievance from his elected Representatives – long enough to have traveled several election cycles in which the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate have changed both Parties and names.
Yesterday, the NH Supreme Court heard oral arguments that the Legislature cannot just ignore that which is in the NH Constitution and view Dan as a gadfly that can be ignored. This is very much the case of an Individual taking on City Hall – and may well win his case. Not just beating City Hall, mind you, but an entire State.
Just as with Doug Lambert (co-founder of GraniteGrok) and Tom Tardiff who set a Right To Know precedent for NH in that the Belknap County Delegation of NH State Reps MUST do their votes in public session…
Sidenote: they tried to elect a replacement Sheriff in a contested race behind closed doors. I remember that former State Rep Alida Milham, at the time, said she didn’t want a public vote simply because she didn’t want to have her friends mad at her. Friendship over official duty and responsibility? She should have resigned on the spot!
…and this may well be the “other bookend” in strengthening the ability of Citizens to hold their elected representatives wholly and entirely accountable outside the normal election cycles. In fact, from what I was told, one of the judges also believed this to be true and had a law school send some of its students to listen in and Dan’s supporters were so numerous that the Court had to set up external TV monitors out in the hallway.
Please remember – like Doug and Tom (a welder and a former telephone lineman), Dan is just an ordinary man, a truck driver, that rose to an extraordinary situation – legislation that was unconstitutional but passed anyways by the State Legislature and signed into Law by the Governor. He protested – and was ignored. He protested – and got kicked to the curb. Then he protested another way – brought them to Court. Pro se – standing “for oneself” – meaning that he taught himself all of the legal information and procedure, doing all the research and analysis, to bringing all that capability to bear against some of the most powerful people in the State and their legal teams.
And, because he had been part of the process and, as Attorney General, had received legal paperwork from Dan for his part, Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald (NH Gov Chris Sununu’s former Attorney General) was “disqualified” from this case (note the empty middle chair). Those hearing the case were:
- Senior Associate Justice Gary E. Hicks
- Justice James P. Bassett
- Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi
- Justice Patrick E. Donovan
I’m told that once the judges left the Courtroom and the door shut behind them, the camera was shut down but the yelling and applause for Dan started in volume.
I asked Dan what the time frame estimate would be on a decision – it is indeterminate. It could be in a couple of weeks to four months – or more. I’m wondering, after watching the entire thing, that Dan did the superior job (and no, I’m not a lawyer, just an ordinary schlub who reads the Constitution far more than most and reads a lot of State Law). Just a couple of questions from the Justices of Dan were asked. Almost from the start, the lawyer for the NH House, James Cianci, was PEPPERED with questions which tells me that the Justices were not amused at the logic he presented. The same was done for the counsel for the NH Senate, Richard Lehmann (full disclosure: he is my lawyer in my ongoing suit against the Gilford School Board), a lot of questions.
While I would suggest that you listen to the whole thing, even if you may not follow it (especially the use by Dan in his emphasis on using the Constitutional Articles), pay attention to the very end where he makes the argument of (paraphrased) “if the Right of Remonstrance is ruled to be defunct, our Republican form of Government is finished. Only Article 10 left)