Articles tagged as

Lawyers

Why judges shouldn’t be lawyers

We seem to take it for granted that, when it’s time to pick a new judge for an appellate court, we should look at people who are already serving as judges on lower courts.  And when we’re filling vacancies on those lower courts, it seems natural that we should look at lawyers who have been … Read more

Assuming I survive….

From this morning’s Concord fish wrap: “Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Woodcock said people who legitimately act in self-defense usually don’t get charged with a crime, anyway. “I think you have to have some confidence in your law enforcement people, that they do do their level best to prosecute, the people who really deserve prosecution and … Read more

Vicious Dogs

“Truth is a good dog; but always beware of barking too close to the heels of an error, lest you get your brains kicked out.”  —Francis Bacon  

“Vicious” Little Dog “Jackson”

In New Hampshire if you are even slightly “nipped” by a dog, you can make a pile of cash! We are not talking about a Pit Bull Terrier or a Rottweiler or a German Shepherd Dog. Nope. We are talking about a 15-pound Jack Russell Terrier. It is of no consequence the injury was only minor….or, non-existent. If a nasty little ankle-biter dog breaks your personal space that is worth thousands of dollars.

It is of no consequence that you entered onto the

Read more

GrokTV Event – Rumney home event for Ovide Lamontagne (Candidate, NH Governor) – Question 3 – Do any tort reforms in the State in order to help us?

The last question was on Obamacare and how to protect NH business owners from it; this question concerns the legal ramifications as well – tort reform.  It is almost obligatory to say that the Democrats are so beholden to the trial lawyers (along with Big Unions, Big Environmentalism, and Wall Street) that their legislation often … Read more

Inebriated William Jasmin Who Fell Out Of A Tree Stand Drops His Lawsuit

“A lawsuit is a fruit tree planted in a lawyer’s garden.” —Italian Proverb

pickpocket.jpg

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.

Read more

KRISTIN TAKES THEM DOWN ONE BY ONE

“Liars are always ready to take oaths.” —Vittorio Alfieri

Brendan_Bisbee_GROK.jpg

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.

Read more

William Jasmin: A Man Without A Hunting License

“Lawyers spend a great deal of their time shoveling smoke.”  ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.”

Hunting_License_09_RickGraphic.jpg

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.

Read more

New Hampshire’s Hunting Tradition Under Attack From Within

Jasmin_Unethical.JPG

“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.

Read more

Why do liberals hate and fear scientific truth?

Answer: For the political Left, politics always trumps truth. Always has, starting with socialism and other forms of statism. A couple of days ago the sainted and foxy Ann Coulter wrote about radiation hormesis, the scientifically supported theory that a certain level of radiation dosage is beneficial to human beings. Well! Liberal truth-deniers went into their usual … Read more

Keeping Family Court Simple, Ain’t So Simple

A Union Leader editorial today, entitled, “Keep it simple: Family court rules work,” asserts that HB 259, “AN ACT requiring the supreme court to adopt rules of evidence for the judicial branch family division“, is a bad idea. The Editorial suggests that implementation of evidentiary rules would overburden a system where the majority of the litigants are not represented by attorneys, give an inequitable disadvantage to a party who is represented by counsel over one who is not, and would drum up business for lawyers, making the system unwieldy and inefficient. I couldn’t disagree more with my friends at the Union Leader.

divorce-decree_small.jpg

The editorial informs us that About 70 percent of people who use the family courts do so without lawyers, mostly because they can’t afford them. While we might agree that it is desirable to have a court system that is accessible to laymen, not being able to afford a lawyer should not absolve people from the responsibility to be reasonable in what they present to the family court in furtherance of their legal positions. The UL asserts, “Alleged facts can be rebutted by the other side,” and while that is fundamentally true, the UL overlooks the notion that unsubstantiated allegations from a bitter and angry spouse inevitably triggers costly ancillary resources and services.

The UL writes, “The loose rules allow people to, say, introduce a phone bill as evidence instead of have a phone company employee testify, or have a witness present to back up an allegation if it’s challenged instead of having to put all witnesses on the stand.” That notion exists already and is more commonly referred to as a “prima facie” offering; that is, the evidence is presumed true on its face unless otherwise rebutted.

The UL tells us, (the present system allows) cases to proceed swiftly, but most importantly it allows people to get divorced or settle custody disputes without hiring lawyers they otherwise cannot afford. Few would disagree hiring legal counsel to navigate through the twists and turns of a divorce case can be costly. There are a significant number of people who simply do not possess the financial means to retain legal services. But what the UL also fails to point out from a fiscal standpoint, is that in a significant number of cases where children are concerned, a guardian ad litem is frequently appointed and the court invariably generates an order requiring one or both parties to pay for the services of a court-appointed GAL…who is most often, A lawyer. And, whether or not they can afford it is inconsequential when they get that first bill from the office of cost containment.

Streamlined Judicial economy is hardly a credible reason for fast food-style divorces that forego evidentiary standards in favor of expediency. The New Hampshire Supreme Court is chucked full of slip opinions deciding, “what is evidence” and “what is not evidence,” all argued by lawyers, I might add, where the personal philosophies of judges and masters prevailed, triggering those appeals.

Read more

HB 146 – Should NH Have Jury Nullification?

Jury boxThe New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee has come out against HB 146, a bill that would give the jury in any trial the power of nullification. 

In this context a unanimous jury could present a not-guilty verdict despite the evidence in the case, or the letter of the law as written or applied, if it agreed in total that the law itself or the circumstances of its application are not compelling grounds for a guilty verdict.

The application of the law could be too narrow or to broad.  The punishment might seem excessive given the details of the charges.  It might be a bad law, or just unclear.  Jury Nullification sends a message to the practitioners of the legal system, and the General Court,  that something is not right.

Read more

Good Ol’ Two Face

  June 24th 2010  Today, Paul Hodes fought to end the influence that corporate and foreign special interests have in American elections by supporting the DISCLOSE Act. July 13th 2010 Paul Hodes’ Senate campaign confirmed that "yes, Paul did attend" the weekend fundraiser hosted by trial lawyers in Vancouver, British Columbia. June 24th 2010 "New Hampshire’s … Read more

The House Passed It, Now Look At What’s In It

I Brought Hash-Brownies for LaterI hope Rath Young Pignatelli, Shaheen and Gordon, and all the other leftward Lawyerly types are prepared for a shot of mandatory diversity.  Those democrat congressmen from New Hampshire they like to donate to—so the government can make more law for lawyers to lawyer over—just passed more than a financial regulations bill when they voted for the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill.  They passed mandatory race and gender diversity requirements for everyone who touches anything near the financial industry.

 

Buried deep inside the forest clearing pages lay provisions mandating that all financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and providers of legal services (for any and all of the above) who have or do business with the federal government or for firms doing business with the federal government on government business, must meet race and gender employment ratios.

Read more

McCotter on the Sham-WOW Summit!

McCotter was just in NH and he was great. Here is just another example of him leading the fight. He was the only member of Republican "Leadership" that voted against TARP as well.   See his recent NH video: http://granitegrok.com/blog/2010/02/thaddeus_mccotter_rmi_blogger_meeting_in.html The Crisis of Consent: Republicans Must NOT Abet Obama’s ShamWoW! Summit Posted by Rep. Thaddeus McCotter … Read more

No good deed goes unpunished…

good samaritan

Thankfully, lawyers were scarce in Biblical days…

The story out of California regarding the "good samaritan" being sued after pulling her friend from a car following a horrific automobile accident is both disturbing– and uplifting. From Overlawyered.com:

California’s Supreme Court has ruled 4-3 that the state’s “Good Samaritan” law providing tort immunity for rescuers applies only to medical personnel providing medical help at an emergency scene, and not to civilians.

“Although the law does not distinguish between types of emergency care, the court majority said the context shows it was meant to be limited to medical care. The law was part of a package of legislation on emergency medical services, Justice Carlos Moreno said in the majority opinion.” (SF Chronicle).

Unless you’ve got medical training, then, think twice about offering to help.

This is just so wrong. How many times have we watched news stories depicting some poor injured person someplace (the man hit by a car in Hartford, CT some months back comes to mind as but one example) in need with people passing by without helping? Generally most people become outraged at such callousness. But now, thanks to the idiots on the California Supreme Court, this might end up being the rule. After all, why risk your own well-being and station in life? The Overlawyered post continues:

Docbloggers have been discussing the decision since then, with GruntDoc siding with the dissent, SymTym countering on behalf of the majority, and Throckmorton reporting that even being on the right side of the law isn’t enough to provide reassurance nowadays:

“Most of my colleagues are afraid to stop at the scene of an accident and render aid for fear of being sued. The Good Samaritan Law is supposed to prevent this fear of suits but no one seems to believe that it will offer any protection.”

Nice, eh? No wonder people dislike lawyers so much… deservedly so. But, through this, there is one bit of good news, showing that despite all the stupidity, all is not bad. There are indeed, still good people left that really do get it: The Boy Scouts of America. And they have been on this, apparently, since the start of this sad affair. From BSA Legal.org:

 

Read more

Powerful Town Administrator Fired

Exit… The story of the firing of the Town Administrator here in the ‘Grok’s hometown seems to have attracted statewide attention. With that in mind, I am posting the following piece with a bit of the backround information for those who might be interested. [Cross-posted at GilfordGrok. Other posts here and here. Excellent Laconia Daily Sun … Read more

More on our Right-to-Know lawsuit…

  . As we continue to wait to find out if the words written in NH’s Right-to-Know law (RSA 91-A) actually mean what they say or not, another long-time citizen-activist of Laconia has weighed in with an observation that we can only hope the judge reads before rendering his final decision on our suit in Superior … Read more

Share to...
BufferCopyFlipboardHacker NewsLineLinkedInMastodonMessengerMixPinterestPrintRedditSMSTelegramTumblrVKWhatsAppXingYummly