Live Free or Die

by Mary Maxwell

Quebec’s Hydroelectric wanted to build a huge transmission line through New Hampshire to pass electricity to southern New England. Citizens started a movement called “No to Northern Pass”

The state motto of New Hampshire is “Live free or die.” Here is a quote from the No-to-Northern-Pass website, to show how the law can be our friend:

“Rod Mcallaster milks 80 cows twice a day on his Stewartstown farm, but he’ll be heading south to Concord next Friday to a Northern Pass hearing to testify that he was indeed featured in a video opposed to the project. [It is called “Negative Impacts of the Northern Pass Transmission Line”]

“State regulators ruled against Northern Pass and ordered the video be shown at the adjudicative hearings, but said all 10 people featured in it must be available for cross-examination as lawyers for the project had insisted.

“It will be quite an outing for the 65-year-old Mcallaster. This will be his first trip to Concord; he’s been too busy with the farm and chores to have ever driven farther south than Littleton.”

Well, good for him, and it paid off: As expressed in the headline of the Union Leader (a very conservative daily having zilch to do with unions): the Site Evaluation Committee pulled the plug. Seven out of seven committee members of that committee voted against it. Wow.

My Day at the Federal Court in New Hampshire

I was in Concord today, having no farm chores to speak of. I went to United States District Court today in Concord to file an appeal of my war-powers case.

In the magnificent foyer I snapped a photo of Lady Justice. She does not yet have her blindfold on, but is seen preparing to tie it around her head. She also is not holding the balancing scales, but the sculptor has designed her arms to be a metaphor for the scales.

Having trudged to the courthouse in the snow (actually, slush), I decided to sit in on a criminal case for which the judge was the one who dismissed my 2006 case, Maxwell v Bush.

This criminal case involves a man who had cashed his children’s Social Security checks and spent them on himself. The Social Security angle made it a federal case. Of course I don’t approve; I say the state should handle crimes such as theft.

Judge Barbadoro ordered a sentence of 13 months’ incarceration to be spent in the prison camp at Fort Devens. And harming children, the judge said, is worse than other crimes. Well, that’s true, and if you break the law you should expect to go to jail. (As long as you are not one of the ever-growing group of protected persons, not mentioning any names Podesta, Kissinger, etc.).

Today’s Union Leader says: “Concord — A 57-year-old [local] man will serve 8 years at a federal prison for possession of child pornography, acting US Attorney John J Farley announced. [The man had] pleaded guilty last October 25.”

Again, I don’t see why this is federal. The commerce clause in the US Constitution gives Congress the job of regulating interstate commerce but the crime here is a sexual one. I also don’t get why the US Attorney was the one to announce the sentencing. Used to be a judge’s job. Maybe I missed something.

When Does Something Belong in the State Constitution?

A victim’s-advocates group has proposed that the New Hampshire constitution’s bill of rights be enlarged to incorporate a concept from a model law. This would inject into the constitution the wording of CACR2, also known as “Mary’s law” (Don’t look at me.)

I agree with Carol Ann Conboy (a retired judge) and Buzz Scherr that it is not a good idea to put specifics into the constitution – that should be the task of the Legislature in a statute. They recommend, instead, a generic addition to the constitution, using only these words: “A victim of crime has the right to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim’s safety, dignity, and privacy.”

Wow, that’s great. I will tell Fiona Barnett. (You there, Fiona?) Ah, I just checked.  The last entry at pedophilesdownunder.com is the one about Dr Victor Chang. An earlier one by Fiona “Alison Miller Set Me Up” does not ring true to me. At least the allegation that Miller acted unethically sounds like maybe someone is setting her up.

A Vital Question! Do Nipples Have Human Rights?

Now to an article in the Feb 2 (Ground Hog Day) 2018 Union Leader. It quotes a piece from the New Hampshire Sunday News, on the Free the Nipple case. (Yes).

I can’t tell whether the writer, Shawne K Wickham was writing satirically, or just being a court reporter. Let me run it here and you decide.

(And as you read it, remember: I’m trying hard to get a court to look at my appeal over the unconstitutionality of Executive Branch decisions to start a nuclear war….)

CONCORD — Arguments before the state Supreme Court typically don’t include discussions of nipples, buttocks and “pasties,” but that was the nature of the case before the high court Thursday morning.

The court heard arguments in an appeal by three women convicted last year of violating a Laconia city ordinance by sunbathing topless at Weirs Beach.

Heidi Lilley of Gilford, Kia Sinclair of Danbury and Ginger Pierro of Canaan are supporters of the “Free the Nipple” movement, contending that laws that only ban exposing female breasts are discriminatory.

Their lawyer, Daniel Hynes, told the court that the city of Laconia “has criminalized being female.”

“I’m not aware of any criminal statute in New Hampshire where an element of the offense that the state must prove is that the defendant is a certain sex,” he said. “I suggest that’s unconstitutional and, really, immoral.”

Hynes said the district court erred in ruling that the equal protection clause is not triggered in such matters because, in essence, all women are treated the same under the ordinance and all men are treated the same.

Under that reasoning, he said, the state could go back to the days of separate water fountains for different races.

Laconia’s public decency ordinance prohibits “showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple.”

Associate Justice Robert Lynn asked Hynes what disadvantage that gives women.
“They were prohibited from being on a beach, which I would suggest is a public accommodation,” Hynes replied.

“Only if they didn’t cover up,” Lynn said. “If I’m a woman and I have to cover up to go to the beach, what’s the practical disadvantage to me of that?”

Susan McGinnis from the Attorney General’s office, who presented the state’s case, said it’s “a matter of public safety and morals.”

She noted that state laws distinguish between male and female breasts when it comes to sexual assault, public decency and privacy. “Those statues give women protections that they don’t give to men because they define women’s nipples as sexual or intimate parts and do not do so for men,” she said.

Senior Associate Justice Gary Hicks asked whether the ordinance could be viewed as “proper expression of community morals.”

What if a community decided it didn’t want gay people on the beach, Hynes countered. “I don’t think the court would hesitate to strike down that.”

Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi noted that “one of the arguments for this ordinance is protecting the women.” But she asked, “Is that an overreach, perhaps, by the Laconia council, protecting women from themselves?”

Not from themselves, McGinnis said.

“Harassment and sexual assault increase when women are topless, and therefore there’s a public safety issue involved, in order to protect women,” McGinnis said, adding that such incidents “increase exponentially” during Motorcycle Week in Laconia.

Hynes argued it’s not a safety issue, noting Laconia is the only place in New Hampshire with such an ordinance. Every year, “Free the Nipple” advocates hold a protest at Hampton Beach without incident, he said.

“I suggest the safety issue in this case is because the city of Laconia actually made it a crime,” he said.

“It’s essentially a heckler’s veto,” Hynes said. “Where if I don’t like someone, I disapprove of them morally, I could start threatening them and then they’re the ones who get in trouble.”

Associate Justice James Bassett noted that the city ordinance also prohibits showing one’s buttocks.

“And it would seem to me that would make all thong bathing suits illegal,” he said. “Should that be an issue or problem for us?”

McGinnis replied that it’s not an issue the justices need to consider, since she’s never heard of anyone getting arrested for wearing a bathing suit.

All the women had to do to comply with Laconia’s ordinance was to wear “pasties,” she said.

“Quite frankly, they could wear pasties that look like nipples, under this ordinance.”

“Don’t mores and sensibilities evolve over time?” asked Bassett. “Back in the 20s, it was illegal in 35 states for men to appear on the beach exposing their upper half.”

McGinnis acknowledged that “times have changed” since the ordinance was adopted in 1998.

“They may need to revisit it, but that doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional,” she said.
swickham@unionleader.com