Same Old Techniques - New "Civil Right"

The New York State Supreme Court made one small leap towards equality for those who like to view child pornography.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/10/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-decided-idUS26525766220120510

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/09/us-usa-pornography-idUSBRE84801220120509

This next “civil right” to be enshrined by a court has taken one small step, but it is at least a step “forward” for equality for child pornography users.

This is how many new rights get their initial momentum.

Granted, the Marist College professor who was convicted of using child pornography – in the privacy of his own home – is still subject to some other 130 odd counts of downloading child pornography, but how long until another activist court moves all of us into the 21st Century?

The NY Legislature has come up with some Neanderthal attempt to go back to the old days when viewing child pornography was a crime in NY, because most people think that having children involved with pornography is bad, evil, illegal, or against their religious beliefs, but the new law may not pan out.

The first step in having some future president endorse home viewing of child pornography can not be that far away.  

Forward!

In NH, When You Want Privacy - Go To An Open Meeting

This foolish opinion released today by the New Hampshire State Supreme Court weakens the Right to Know Law, RSA 91-A.

Here it is:

PFFNH (Professional Fire Fighters of NH) argues that LGC (NH Municipal Association) could not have reasonably expected that its communications with counsel were made in confidence because they occurred during the course of open meetings, and because LGC took no precautions to ensure the communications were private. PFFNH concedes, however, that no members of the public were present during the meetings. Because the ultimate touchstone is the speaker’s reasonable expectation that the communications were made in confidence, the fact that the meetings were technically open to the public under RSA 91-A:2, I, is of no import. As the superior court aptly observed, “The fact that the meeting occurs in a public place does not destroy the privilege, if no one hears the conversation.” LGC could have reasonably relied on the absence of public attendees to ask for the candid advice of counsel. Had members of the public been present, the conversation could have progressed differently. Thus, because no third persons were present at the meeting, LGC was not required to take any further precautions – such as entering into executive session – to ensure the communications were private.

Affirmed.

DALIANIS, C.J., and HICKS and CONBOY, JJ., concurred.

Here is how this ruling came about:

The Firefighters wanted to make public, communications they had AT AN OPEN MEETING with the Municipal Association.

The Municipal Association objected with the excuse there were no members of the “public” in attendance.

This should have been an easy decision for the Superior Court and the Supreme Court.

All communications during an open meeting are public.

But no, that was much too easy for the courts.

My guess is that they must be protecting the NHMA lawyers from their own stupidity. NHMA should know better.

If an open meeting is in progress and anyone wants to go into an executive or nonpublic portion of the meeting, the people conducting the meeting must vote in the affirmative to do so under, in this case, legal discussions with counsel.

These courts have now opened up open meetings to secrecy because some lawyers want to keep quiet what the negotiations were with the firefighters.

So we can assume that from now on any lawyer can simply argue that since no one from the public was attending a public meeting, some communications are non-public. Then we can argue if a member of the public was actually a member of the public.

How about minutes of the meeting? If no one from the public is at an “open meeting” can we make portions of that open meeting secret when it comes to minutes as well?

Why bother having votes to go into non-public meeting at all? If no public member shows up its a free for all of secret conversations – and maybe documents, decisions, photos, votes, and signatures?

If one leaves a tape recorder on at a meeting and no one else is there, is that an "open meeting with no member of the public in attendance"?

The Courts just couldn’t leave well enough, and RSA 91-A, alone and let the lawyers for NHMA/LGC squirm while the public found out what else they have been up to besides skimming $100 million dollars off the top of the Professional Fire Fighters and various NH municipalities insurance premiums.

What A Team

Now let me get this straight.

Joe Biden hops off a short bus, snaps off his short leash and blabbers something about being in favor of homosexual “marriage.” Nice job Uncle Joe.

It appears Biden is looking in the presidential mirror for a reflection of things to come – for him in 2016.

Now he put Obama in a fix. Obama was having enough trouble getting re-elected without this popping up.

Hence we have the laughable evolution of Obama into a pro-homosexual marriage champion. It is almost painful to watch this rookie move unfold.

And we see reports of millions of dollars swamping the Obama campaign in just moments.

But hey, what about the rest of the national homosexual marriage agenda? Wasn’t that money supposed to be beefing up state homosexual marriage campaigns?

Remember the money from out-of-state coming to New Hampshire Democrats just before Governor Lynch’s evolution?

Obama just sucked all that state money out of the equation.

As is always with Obama, it’s me, me, me. And he probably will not be around after November when Crazy Joe once again runs for President.

They deserve each other.

The best that can come of this mess is that it takes the limelight off Eric Holder selling guns to Narco-terrorists who murder our border agents, the media getting an underwearbomber de-briefing before Congress, trillions in debt, high gas prices with no pipeline construction in sight, Obamacare, unemployment at unacceptable levels even with fudging, and a host of other things that show Obama is an incompetent Marxist.

Its time for Obama and his clan to move back to Chicago, take his home out of Tony Rezko's name, find some international socialist group to hire him to give speeches, and see if he can draw bigger crowds than Governor Palin.

HB 1704, DOA - But Redeemable!

Representative Shaun Doherty, a taxpayer friend in the House, sponsored a bill called #1704 which was morphed into something with the potential to open up small 501 (c) 4 non-profits like CNHT to endless litigation or other trouble with our political opponents.

I hear it has been “laid on the table,” as in, what you would do to a corpse in the morgue.

Great news!!

But now that the can of worms issue of non-profit organizations/campaign donations has been opened – let’s make sure we make lemonade out of lemons. I just maxed out my cliché quotient.

A part of the amending of RSA 655:17-c was to increase the limits on reporting by political committees.

OK, I get that.

The Coalition of NH Taxpayers does not support candidates as an organization but individual Directors are certainly allowed that opportunity.

“Measures” as defined in the amended HB1704 - now that is a different issue.

Our group may put a lot of effort behind a certain measure that affects taxpayers and voters. Voter fraud comes to mind.

I know this bill was aimed at statewide offices but it does bring up an issue near and dear to most taxpayers regarding electioneering.

Let us take a look.

Here is part of what legislators who tampered with Shaun Doherty’s original bill, or those writing such language for them, seemed to want:

3 Definitions; Expenditure. Amend RSA 664:2, IX to read as follows:

IX. “Expenditure” shall mean the disbursement of money or thing of value or the making of a legally binding commitment to make such a disbursement in the future for the purpose of influencing the nomination for election or election of any candidate or candidates or the success or defeat of a measure or measures. It does not include the candidate’s filing fee or his or her expenses for personal travel and subsistence.

4 Definitions; Independent Expenditures. Amend RSA 664:2, XI to read as follows:

XI. “Independent expenditures” means expenditures by a person, political committee, or other entity expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or candidates or the success or defeat of a measure or measures which are made without cooperation or consultation with any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate, and which are not made in concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate. As used in this paragraph, “clearly identified” means that the name of the candidate involved appears; a photograph or drawing of the candidate appears; or the identity of the candidate is apparent by unambiguous reference.

5 New Paragraph; Definitions; Electioneering Communication. Amend RSA 664:2 by inserting after paragraph XVII the following new paragraph:

XVIII. “Electioneering communication” means any broadcast, publication, mailer, or cable or satellite communication that fulfills each of the following conditions:

(a) The communication refers to a clearly identified candidate for state office or measure without a call to action.

(b) The communication is publicly distributed within 60 days prior to a general election or 30 days prior to a primary election for the office a candidate is seeking.

(c) The communication is targeted to the relevant electorate.

Now that 1704 is dead on the slab why not have this same language tweaked a bit to target a real problem with “independent political expenditures.”

How about in next legislative session our taxpayer friendly elected officials in Concord use this same language to put the brakes on School Superintendants who electioneer through the use of parent emails they have for emergency use at our public schools?

If you say you want clean state elections why not start with clean municipal elections???

Superintendants who use parent emails and school flyers in an unlawful last minute effort to pass building bonds (a measure) or a school budget (another measure) would be making a political expenditure for a clearly defined measure, within 60 days, to a very targeted, relevant electorate.

That same school super would also be, a person, expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified a measure or measures which are made without cooperation or consultation with any candidate, or any authorized committee.

Here is my humble suggestion.

Amend RSA 659:44 to include the ever present, politically active school superintendent.

664:5 Prohibited Political Expenditures. – No expenditure or use of a contribution, tangible or intangible, shall be made for the purpose of promoting the success or defeat of any political party, measure or candidate:

    I. By a political committee, except the political committee of a political party, unless the political committee meets the requirements of RSA 664:3, I.

    II. By a political committee which is organized to support a candidate in any election, or to such candidate or the candidate's fiscal agent unless the committee secures and files the written consent of the candidate or the candidate's fiscal agent with the secretary of state in accordance with RSA 664:3, III.

    III. By any person, candidate or political committee, for political advertising in a newspaper, periodical, or on a radio or television broadcast, or on a billboard, if at a rate more or less than the applicable rates to be filed with the secretary of state.

    IV, V. [Repealed.]

Now who among our legislators in Concord wants to take on a sorely needed piece of legislation now that HB 1704 is dead?

Words Mean Some Things

We are watching with great anticipation, today’s hearing in Hillsborough North, in regards to Manchester v. Gardner, the redistricting case, or should I say cases, inevitable after each redistricting plan is submitted.

Read it for yourself: http://www.scribd.com/doc/91386524/Manchester-v-Gardner-Petition

The City of Manchester, a person apparently, as is Bill Garner - the Secretary of Stories About Our Primary.

If you notice the title of this case it is called MANCHESTER v. Gardner, not a person from Manchester v. Bill Gardner or Manchester v. NH Secretary of State.

This comes under the statute RSA 507:9: Section 507:9

    507:9 Transitory. – Transitory actions, in which any one of the parties is an inhabitant of the state, shall be brought in the county or judicial district thereof where some one of them resides. If no one of the parties is an inhabitant of the state, the action may be brought in any county or judicial district.

“Secretary of Fun Stories” Bill Gardner is a real person, so it is safe to assume Manchester is a person as well.

As a pro se litigant in our illustrious NH Superior Court system I probably would have had a case like this tossed for an improper title.

Couldn’t “Mr. or Ms. Manchester” find a person in a living body, not body politic, to slap a name on this slap suit?

RSA 507:9, mentioned in the suit, says the party must be an “inhabitant” of the State as opposed to “domiciled” in the State. This must mean, if voting in NH is a guide, that you need only a light bill as identification to bring a case to Superior Court.

I’ll try that next time and see where it gets me.

Back to redistricting and Manchester's problem:

How come we never see a redistricting court case against a town like Hanover where the small towns around it share representation.

More non-resident same day registering students vote in Hanover than live in the small towns around it. That is how the county wound up with a Dartmouth student county treasurer from Colorado who abandoned the position.

What was Manchester's beef again?