63 Emerald St. #610
Keene, New Hampshire
August01, 2013
Case ID: Department of Safety, Administrative Hearing from 1pm on 2013-07-26.
Case Name: State v. Ian Freeman f/k/a Ian H Bernard
Now comes Ian Freeman by special appearance, not submitting to the department’s jurisdiction, who hereby moves this department to dismiss the complaint filed by Jean Kilham of the Keene Police for a lack of evidence proving jurisdiction and a denial of a fair hearing. Grounds are further set forth below.
1. Lack of evidence proving jurisdiction. Jean Kilham has the burden of proving jurisdiction; this is met with evidence from a competent witness, not opinion and speculation.
Kilham has previously been requested to provide such evidence as has been unable to, this includes phone calls with Marc Stevens who assisted me at the 26 July 2013 hearing, and in formal discovery requests in court. Kilham withdrew her complaint from court because she knew there was no evidence proving the constitution and statutes of the state of New Hampshire applied to me and filed here because there is a lower burden of proof.
At the 26 July 2013 hearing Kilham was repeatedly questioned on the evidence she relies on proving the statutes applied to me and she failed to present anything and allowing hearing officer Michael King to take her burden of proof. King was very hostile and would not permit any challenge to jurisdiction, he just kept pushing for the hearing to proceed so Kilham's witness could testify.
2. Denial of fair hearing. Marc Stevens was assisting me by video. Marc repeatedly requested evidence Kilham had presented proving the constitution and statutes of the state applied to me and King incessantly spoke over, interrupted Marc and refused to hold Kilham to her burden of proof on jurisdiction.
Challenges and objections to assumptions of jurisdiction are valid and relevant to any fair legal proceeding; but King refused to permit them and instead deliberately mischaracterized them as Marc's not allowing the hearing to proceed and being disruptive. King even did an unprofessional countdown (1-5) and threatened to cut Marc's video feed if he said another word. This was no idle threat from King, it was: continue tying to hold Kilham to her burden of proof and I'll cut your feed.
King was openly hostile to Marc throughout; it was clear King did not like Marc objecting and insisting Kilham meet her burden of proof before a witness was permitted to testify. Before King unfairly cut Marc's video feed, King falsely claimed he was only interested in the evidence and Marc was being disruptive. Marc called him on this, telling King he was being disingenuous because King was not interested in evidence. Marc was cut abruptly so the record will not show that Marc's full statement was that if King were interested in evidence, then he would have had Kilham provide the evidence proving the constitution and statutes of the state applied to me and there was jurisdiction over me.
Instead, King worked to relieve Kilham of her burden of proof, not only on jurisdiction, but an element of the accusation.
King admitted he already was of the opinion the statutes of the state applied to me even though Kilham had presented no evidence and no witness testimony. When Marc questioned King on the evidence from Kilham he relied on to prove this assertion, King refused: [1][2][3][4]“But the maxim applies, quod non apparet non est. The fact not appearing is presumed not to exist.”The Clara, 102 US 200.
When Kilham's accusations against me rest entirely upon the statutes of the state being applicable to me, it's unfair for King to assume they do and then angerly oppose Marc's challenges . King had no intention of having a fair hearing. Good faith and fairness dictate King hold his decisions until after the evidence is presented. [5]
It was unfair for King to be hostile and refuse to hold Kilham to her burden of proof. His arbitrary assumption the statute applied to me prior to any evidence being presented by Kilham or her witness testifying is evidence King came into the hearing having already determined the statutes applied to me. The only thing King relies on to prove this is a logical fallacy that the statute applies because the statute says so, there is no evidence.
Objections to jurisdiction and holding an accuser to their burden of proof by way of objections is not disruptive and was not good cause to cut Marc's assistance. It was unfair and meant only to make it easier for Kilham. Marc was making a case for prosecutorial misconduct and King didn't like it:
[6][7]“By going outside the evidence, the prosecutor “violated a fundamental rule, known to every lawyer, that argument is limited to the facts in evidence.”United States ex rel. Shaw v. De Robertis, 755 F.2d 1279, 1281 (7th Cir.1985).
King openly assisted Kilham by repeatedly picking up her burden of proof. That is unfair and a denial of a fair hearing and violated due process.
3. Unqualified witness permitted to testify. King allowed the cop to testify over Marc's objection the witness lacked personal knowledge the constitution and statutes of the state apply to me. While hearsay may be admissible, speculation is not. The witness never provided any evidence, hearsay or otherwise, the constitution and statutes applied to me.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the complaint against me should be dismissed for a denial of a fair trial, King and Kilham's due process violations and a lack of evidence proving jurisdiction..
Mailed this ____ day of August 2013.
______
Ian Freeman
Certificate of service
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been mailed this
___ day of August 2013 to Jean Kilham.
______
Ian Freeman
****NOTICE: All correspondence is subject to being posted on FreeKeene.com****
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]<!--StartFragment-->
[5]<!--EndFragment-->
[6]
[7]