News – Politics – Opinion – Podcasts
Could the state take a child away from a parent who does not want the child to receive cross-sex hormones and amputation of healthy body parts? An Ohio court has told us the answer: yes.
When transgender identity is treated as a non-elective medical procedure, that’s where the child welfare and legal systems inevitably lead.
We’ve got voter fraud revelations tied to Joe Biden’s niece Alana, author Warren Ray joins us to discuss his book, ‘Shadow Patriots,’ and Darren McKinney from Americans for Tort Reform to discuss States that are Judicial Hellholes (like New Hampshire).
We continue with Max Abramson on the state’s’ Judicial system, corrupt courts, and the problem of police accountability.
The Legislature must reestablish its place above the courts
By Carolyn McKinney, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire.
While many in Concord are clamoring over language for an educational-funding constitutional amendment (CACR 12), what’s being lost in the final debate of the 2011-2012 session is a constitutional amendment proposal far more important to the people of New Hampshire as they work to regain control of their government.
CACR 26, a constitutional amendment proposal that would remove the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court’s rule-making authority by repealing Part 2, Article 73-a of the constitution, is probably the most important effort still up for consideration this year. By passing CACR 26 and repealing Article 73-a, the Legislature, which is directly elected by the people each biennium, would regain sole authority to write the laws, rules and general policies of the state as our founders intended.
Since 1978, when Article 73-a was adopted under a description of the measure that called it a “housekeeping effort,” the language has given the Supreme Court the power to write court rules that have “the force and effect of law.” This language has severely upset the balance of powers in government to the benefit of the unelected five-member Supreme Court. Since 1978, the court has been using the language of Article 73-a to order the Legislature and the people of this state around, in effect creating the likes of an old-world oligarchy.
Making this analogy far too real is the language in Article 73-a that says the Chief Justice of the N.H. Supreme Court is “the administrative head of all the courts.” Because the Legislature is known in the Constitution as the “General Court,” some have interpreted Article 73-a as a constitutional change that gives the Supreme Court and the other courts it controls unrestrained authority over the Legislature, and by extension, the people. Such an understanding is intolerable in a free Constitutional Republic and it is also inconsistent with the rest of the N.H. Constitution, which makes CACR 26 that much more important to pass.
The court originally advocated for Article 73-a as a way to control the internal procedures of the courtroom, but it has since used the language to go much further than that.
“A lawsuit is a fruit tree planted in a lawyer’s garden.” —Italian Proverb
William Jasmin of Manchester, the drunk, non-licensed hunter who sued a landowner following his own demise in falling from a tree stand, has dropped his lawsuit.
Jasmin suffered partial paralysis when the tree stand he attempted to enter failed, causing him to fall. Jasmin initially proffered in his original pleadings that he was “hunting” but in August amended his pleadings to assert that he was, “scouting.” while present on the land owned by Charlie Corliss, of Epsom,
Jasmin friend Randy Howe had said Corliss had given them permission to use the tree stand, however, Jasmin’s lawyer now asserts the friend had spoke to someone else who mistakenly believed it was on his property.
This very case stirred concerns and tensions within the hunting community that farmers, foresters and other large landowners might potentially close their property to hunting and other recreational uses, for fear they could be potentially held liable for recreational injuries.
Jasmin’s lawyer B.J. Branch, told The Associated Press, “this suit was never about access to land; The suit was about holding the owner of a defective product accountable.” Baloney! This suit was about William Jasmin finding the deepest possible pockets to compensate him for his own failures to act responsibly, ethically and within the laws of this state. And, while doing this, he was willing and ready to throw the entire hunting community under the bus. Eighty percent of all available hunting land is private property in New Hampshire. Clearly, this lawsuit became about access.
Brendan Bisbee, love interest of the infamous shrew Kristin Ruggiero is presently on trial
answering to seven counts of Perjury where prosecutors allege he lied for Kristin during her trial. Also under indictment are Elizabeth “Kim” McDonald, Kristin’s mother, Daniel Ruggiero, Chief Petty Officer Jeffrey Ruggiero’s estranged brother and of course, Kristin has been re-indicted following her trial on twenty-one new counts consisting of witness tampering, four counts; falsifying evidence, three counts; Solicitation/Perjury, four counts; Perjury, six counts and, Unsworn Falsification, four counts. Shrew Kristin pal, Sharon Cohen who testified at trial, also faces legal exposure, but has yet to be indicted.
Aside from the obvious “Midas Touch: of sorts Kristin seems to possess, that is, those who get tangled up in Kristin’s web of manipulation would be well-served to have legal counsel retained. People who take up with Kristin inevitably face legal exposure.
On Wednesday, September 21, The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard from Kristin Ruggiero. Kristin seeks to overturn her convictions arguing that the court should have excluded a photo of her cell phone number, and an intercepted telephone conversation that served as the evidence that brought her to her current demise.
Kristin Ruggiero was sent to Jail in May of 2010, convicted of twelve counts consisting of lying and falsifying physical evidence. Kristin had tried to do what many before her have done and gotten away with: Using the court system to exact a personal vendetta against her ex-husband Jeffrey Ruggiero.
In oral arguments before the Court, Attorney Mark L. Sisti argued that the evidence used to convict Kristin should have been thrown out because it was disqualified under N.H. RSA 570-A:6 because in New Hampshire, her consent was not obtained by the parties in South Carolina to make the intercept. New Hampshire commonly referred to as a, “two party” state, requires consent of all parties before any recording may be made, while South Carolina does not. Sisti concedes that, while no crime may have been committed by the recording because the interception took place in South Carolina, A New Hampshire resident still has the expectation of privacy under the statute, and the evidence should have been excluded. Sisti essentially argues for an absolute long-arm immunity without consideration to laws of extra-territorial consequence. (Listen to the arguments HERE).
On one October 2007 evening, Boston attorney Simon Glik, was walking past Boston Common where Boston police officers John Cunniffe, Peter Savalis and Jerome Brewster were effecting an arrest. Hearing a nearby person state, “Stop! You’re hurting him!” Glik began video recording the incident from approximately ten feet away, using his cell phone. Shortly thereafter, Glik was arrested and his cell phone confiscated.
Charged with violation of the Massachusetts wiretap statute(Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(C)(1)), In February, 2008, the Boston Municipal Court summarily disposed of the wiretap charge, noting, “the fact that the officers were unhappy they were being recorded during an arrest . . . does not make a lawful exercise of a First Amendment right a crime.”
Glik filed a civil rights action against the officers and the City of Boston in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts when his internal affairs complaints were ignored. Summarily, The People’s Republik moved to dismiss Glik’s complaint asserting that his allegations failed to adequately support his claims and that officers were entitled to qualified immunity “because it is not well-settled that he had a constitutional right to record the officers.” The court denied the motion and the commonwealth’s interlocutory appeal followed in which they did not prevail.
In its opinion, the court stated, “Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs.’” And the court ruled “a citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public place is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment…”
In the wake of this opinion are the countless arrests in the Granite State for the very same activities, as detailed numerous times in the New Hampshire Union Leader. The one incident that comes to mind is a Sheriff’s Deputy attempting to thwart Representative Gary Hopper from video-recording in the Legislative Office building back in 2010. Finally, House Bill 145 , presently languishes in the Senate and has met with a great deal of resistance from Law Enforcement.
Police are concerned that the bill fails to protect both their privacy and that of the public they serve. Privacy? What privacy? they are Public servants subject to the accountability to that same public they serve!
The Union Leader’s James A. Kimble reports this morning that convicted liar Kristin Ruggiero’s divorce attorney, Linda Theroux, is being brought before the State Attorney Discipline Office charging that Theroux changed a military release form violating state ethics rules. Theroux, who represented Kristin Ruggiero in the divorce case, stands accused of misconduct during the course of her representation.
Theroux allegedly altered a military records release form Jeffrey Ruggiero signed and handed over to her, wrote James Kruse, an attorney for the Attorney Discipline Office.
Attorney James Kruse for the Discipline Office charges that Theroux altered a Military Records release given her by Jeffrey Ruggiero. After receiving the release Theroux’s alteration expanded the scope of inquiry in adding that Ruggiero assented to disclosing his “entire military file” notwithstanding documents classified as ‘Secret’ or ‘Top Secret’ or for National Defense Purposes,” Theroux never subsequently submitted the records release for judicial review by the family court, Kruse’s complaint further charges.
Kristin Ruggiero is a story that won’t go away for a long time to come. It is the quintessential epic saga of of lying, manipulation, skullduggery…a plot found only on scripts of daytime soaps, but with all the trappings of a Shakespearian tragedy, sans dark humor.
Union Leader’s Kimble reports that, “Jeffrey Ruggiero’s divorce lawyers at the time, Phil DesFossess and Celeste Christo, found out about the altered document when they were contacted by a U.S. Coast Guard commander.”
In my previous entry about a “Hunter” who was seriously injured when a tree stand that he climbed into collapsed, causing him to fall, there was a presumption that the “Hunter” was lawfully engaged in the activity of hunting upon the land of Charles Corliss. That is not the case. WILLIAM JASMIN HAD NO LICENSE TO HUNT.
On Wednesday, July 13, I went to the New Hampshire Fish & Game Licensing Division and filled out the form, N.H. FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT INFORMATION REQUEST . “The information requested was not found” was how the form was returned.
This morning’s, Concord Monitor featured a story entitled, “Hunter falls from tree, sues property owner” where in that story Jasmin’s attorney B.J. Branch admits that Jasmin was drinking the day of the accident and he tells the monitor, “[w]as at or below the legal limit for intoxication. He added that because of Jasmin’s serious blood loss, the blood alcohol test may not have been accurate…”
But all of that aside, other questions arise. For example, N.H. RSA 635:2 (Criminal Trespass) states in part, “A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place…”
RSA 214:1(License Required) states in part, “No person, except as hereinafter provided, shall at any time fish, hunt, trap, shoot, pursue, take or kill…[w]ild animals in this state, without first procuring a proper and valid license to do so, and then only in accordance with the terms of such license and subject to all the provisions of this title…”
When Jasmin, through his attorney filed his writ, he asserted, “On or about November 17, 2009, William Jasmin sustained serious injuries while hunting on property owned by the defendant…” Jasmin, through his attorney, made a “sworn statement that he was “hunting.”
RSA 207:36-a (Use of Tree Stands) states in part, “No person shall erect, build or use a tree stand… [o]n land of another person that damages or destroys a tree by inserting into the tree any metallic, ceramic, or other object used as part of a ladder or observation deck, without express written permission from the property owner or designee...” Jasmin asserts he had an “invite” to use the tree stand. Chuck Corliss states he hasn’t hunted in 40 years and was not aware of the tree stand’s presence. I believe Chuck Corliss and if the court does, then Jasmin violated yet another law. If a person hunting happens upon a tree stand and climbs into the stand…and branches have been cut, and then a Conservation Officer thereafter happens along, the C.O. is going to ask for the persons “written permission” to have a tree stand where limbs have been removed. Having no permission, a citation is inevitable.
“Every unfortunate event does not give rise to lawsuit.” ~Judge Mills Lane
Hunting is a time-honored tradition in New Hampshire. Interwoven into that tradition is a significant part of New Hampshire’s economy, relationships with landowners and other hunters. Unfortunately, hunting has now come under attack from within…in this case, by a hunter.
On April 8, 2011 William Jasmin of Manchester filed a lawsuit in the Hillsborough Superior Court alleging that Charles A Corliss of Epsom, (the land owner) was negligent in that Corliss allegedly gave his consent to Jasmin to use a tree stand situated on the property, but then failed to warn Jasmin that the tree stand was defective. Jasmin subsequently fell and serious injuries followed. Jasmin now sues Corliss, the landowner to recover for his injuries.
New Hampshire RSA 212:34 limits the liability of a person entering onto another’s land and states the owner owes no duty (author’s emphasis) of care to keep such premises safe for entry or use by others for hunting…[o]r to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on such premises to persons entering for such purposes, except as provided in paragraph III hereof…”(click the link above and read the full text of the law).
Since 1961, the legislative intent has been to shield landowners from liability when they open their land and make it available for public for use. Now, as with other things in life, lawyers tread upon our ground, seeking to pierce the shield of protection for the pursuit of the almight buck and the advocacy of those amongst us who make poor choices.
In addition to RSA 212:34, RSA 508:14 asserts, “[w]ho without charge permits any person to use land for recreational purposes or as a spectator of recreational activity, shall not be liable for personal injury or property damage in the absence of intentionally caused injury or damage…” It is clear that the legislature was duplicitous and intended to protect landowners from liability when people engaged in inherently risky activities.
But I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the “slip and fall-smith” hired by Mr Jasmin didn’t include some allegation that Mr Jasmin was charged….a “fee.” The pleadings assert that “specific consideration” was asked for by Mr. Corliss in that he asked Jasmin to, “shoot as many Coyotes as he could..” Consideration? Seriously? I’ll be watching to see how the court wrangles with that, should this somehow make it past Summary Judgment.
“It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state.” -Bruce Schneier, American cryptographer, computer security specialist, and writer. Today, the Union Leader’s Dan O’Brien informs us that, Weare Police face more federal lawsuits. Free-stater Carla Gericke is the most recent filing on the heels of a suit filed … Read more
An acrimonious divorce where children are involved nearly always devolves into a test of wills between the litigants, who were once husband and wife. Statistically, the woman in such cases prevail a majority of time. And of those times where the court battle is disposed of in family court, the acrimony has often risen to a level where it simply isn’t sufficient for one party to prevail over the other. There must be some form of scorched earth brought to bear.
In many cases, a prevailing parent, will seek child support orders and awards that financially disadvantage the losing spouse. Allegations will often follow questioning the suitability or fitness of a parent. Invariably, it isn’t enough to simply prevail on the point of law. One must simply crush the other, financially and emotionally, alienating the children by building a wall between the non-custodial parent and the minor children. An extreme environment of discomfort and stress is built around visitation exercises, many simply give up, emotionally exhausted over their children’s animosity toward them. The custodial spouse later charges inattentiveness for lack of consistency in the visitation schedule. This is probably one of the most ugliest facets of life anybody could be forced to endure. The family courts, charged with mediating these issues, often makes them far worse.
Today, the Union Leader‘s Nancy West treats us to the sordid tale of Cheryl Ann Maher, a mother seeking to regain custody of her minor children. The father, Dr. Eric Lee Knight presently has physical custody. Following a visit with the minor children, Ms. Maher was to return the children no later than 5:00 PM on March 13, in keeping with the parenting plan. She did not. She spirited them off, instead to a hotel in Salem, telling the UL her, “Ex-husband withheld medicine from one of the twin daughters for cold-like symptoms and fails to provide adequate services for the twins’ autism.”
The one constant about commentary, especially where the topic bears the highest degree of controversy, said topics will most certainly invite a wide array of opinions…differing or assenting. Comments are rarely ever substantive enough to inspire or fuel a whole other body of work. But, given the nature of Kristin Ruggiero’s case, the depth and breadth of the lies told, manipulations undertaken, and confabulations engaged, This is one such instance.
On Tuesday, I editorialized and commented on Kristin Ruggiero’s recent pilgramage down to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to answer charges currently docketed there. The sources of information used to write the blog were from specific news media reports that were, in fact, linked to at various places in the article. Included with the accounts were my own personal flavor and coloring.
Today, as I come to NHInsider, I am greeted by the comment, “backing the wrong horse…” submitted by one who identifies ones’ self as, “peter ross-uncle”. Now, it is not at all unusual for friends, supporters or even loved-ones to defend the target of an article. It is almost expected. But given the very nature of Kristin’s criminal convictions and the theatrics she undertook to get her where she is today, is it not unreasonable to seriously question the source of such a comment? Who is Peter Ross? Is (he) really an uncle? does he even exist? or perhaps is it one of Kristin’s shrew friends posing as a luddite-esque family member who perhaps doesn’t even own a computer?
Convicted Shrew Kristin Ruggiero received a change of scenery recently. She went on a road trip, but hardly an, “excellent adventure.” She is currently on holiday from New Hampshire Graybar U as a guest at MCI Framingham, noshing on bag lunches and partaking the requisite exercise program called, “cellblock shakedown.” She is down yonder in the commonwealth to answer charges of a similar nature filed by the Barre Police.
Nobody sets the bar higher than Kristin. Not when it comes to false allegations, lying and conniving. Kristin is like the Energizer Bunny: She keeps going and going and Going.
Every individual life she has touched has been negatively affected. Shrew Kristin has duped New England Cable News with her faux victim story; she has convinced family members to lie and fabricate evidence for her. He own Mother, Elizabeth “Kim” McDonald is now facing felony charges of her own. Her boyfriend and former Barre Massachusetts Police Officer Brendan Bisbee now faces charges relating to his part in her case. Finally, her ex-bother-in-law Daniel Ruggiero has been indicted as well.
Kristin is all locked up. In Jail…facing another trial because of lies and fabrications she committed in the first trial. It does not end there. Kristin is on a road trip. She is currently a guest of the State of Massachusetts where she is being held to answer charges Barre police filed in 2009 accusing her of intimidation of a witness and criminal harassment. Housed at MCI Framingham, she will stand trial at Western Worcester District Court in Brookfield MA.
In February and March 2008, while working in Barre Massachusetts, Kristin filed a report with Barre Police alleging to have witnessed crimes. In the course of the reporting, officers ran routine checks of Kristin’s driver’s license for background information. Officers were not able to ascertain whether Kristin has a valid operator’s license, having driven