Victim's come in all shapes and sizes: Robert L. Lamontagne's wrongful conviction

[penguin]

Originally published at: Victim’s come in all shapes and sizes: Robert L. Lamontagne’s wrongful conviction | Free Keene

Bradley made a comment previously about a case involving Robert L. Lamontagne who was convicted by a jury for a crime he didn’t commit. His comment should have been a blog post, and so I’ll post it here now. The important thing to remember about this case is Robert has maintained his innocence for close to 40 years and that the evidence relied upon to convict was sourced from a corrupt law enforcement officer.

Bradley’s not a libertarian, though taking up a worthy cause, and he’s a former law enforcement officer himself. Robert is not a libertarian either, but also pursuing a worthy cause of making the public aware of the injustices in the system. He has little to gain, and will at a minimum suffer from harassment for bringing his story to light.

Bardley’s comment emphases a systematic problem with our “justice system”. It convicts folks without sufficient evidence and with “evidence” that is tainted. When a jury hasn’t been made aware of an officer’s problematic history of telling lies those involved in failing to inform the defense should be criticized, arrested, and charged.

In this case the law enforcement officers whose testimony the jury relied on to convict was on the lorry list and should never have been used at trial. This was not revealed to the defendant and laws were broken by the prosecutor and law enforcement. This is not a story about a child rapist, but a story about a man wrongfully convicted based on tainted evidence who is himself a victim of the system. The law enforcement officer whose ethics are in question made a name for himself “protecting kids”, but in reality has gained notoriety by luring men into situations under false pretenses and then making false claims about their actions, intent, and/or circumstances.

Bradly’s comments:

A priority of Rob’s and mine at this point is having him properly identified as a “victim” of a crime under New Hampshire law. The NH “Victim’s Bill of Rights Act,” located at RSA 21-M:8-k affords an individual who has been victimized certain rights under the law.

Wait, Bradley… you say Rob should be identified as a victim? Yes. Yes, I do.

At least two people knew that Keene Police Department Detective James McLaughlin had “Laurie List” material on his record… and they never told Rob’s defense attorney. That would be Cheshire County Attorney Ed O’Brien and Detective McLaughlin himself.

That is a crime under New Hampshire law.

RSA 641:3 “Official Oppression” reads as follows:

“A public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2, II, is guilty of a misdemeanor if, with a purpose to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office; or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.”

By knowingly refraining to comply with a duty imposed on them by federal law (the “Brady” Supreme Court decision) that being properly disclosing exculpatory material, Detective McLaughlin and the County Attorney committed a crime.

As the crime they committed they’ve probably (I have no evidence of this… it just seems likely) committed many times by not turning that exculpatory would warrant enhanced sentencing under RSA 651:6 (I.) (a), the Victims Bill-of-Rights applies to Rob as a victim of an enhanced sentencing misdemeanor.

One could even further argue that by “concealing” this information Detective McLaughlin and County Attorney O’Brien were committing the “B” felony of “Falsifying Physical Evidence” found at RSA 641:6.

Either way… Rob’s trial was vile because his jury never had the opportunity properly weigh the evidence proffered by the lead investigator through the lens of his misconduct.

Now listen… I wasn’t a perfect police officer. I made lots of bonehead mistakes… and I was lucky to have cool bosses who tried to teach me to do better. In retrospect I wish I heeded much of the wisdom they tried to teach me at the age of 18 being a sworn officer.

All new cops screw up and do stupid shit.

This is different… this lead investigator had been disciplined for falsifying records. That offense has some purpose to it. What else is a guy capable of if he gets caught doing that? Technically that could have probably been charged as a felony… but as he had a badge, just a write up.

Rob’s jury should have known the guy they were trusting to slap leg irons on him for nearly a decade might not be so trustworthy. It is the jury, not the judge, who properly weighs the credibility of a witness.

I will properly report back on the status of this designation when a response is given to me by the proper authorities.

This comment is made pursuant to Part I, Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution and will be vigorously defended as such by any Committee who may try to call me out for calling this case out the way I see it.

[Highline]

Although I am not an anarchist, I’d like to think I’m VERY libertarian

[penguin]

Well, I’m pretty sure you never claimed to be a libertarian, at most libertarian leaning in some respects. I think it was important to point out to the haters that your far less libertarian, and they’re effectively attacking one of ‘their own’.

So libertarians are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal, but that’s an over-generalization. It boils down to violence and being against the use of violence to achieve social and political objectives. It’s more than just social and political objectives, but more of a pacifist philosophy with the exception of self defense.

And what defines violence isn’t just one-on-one, but one-to-many as well, so voting in favor of a bill that regulates driving for instance, regulations are backed by a state of violence, that is what the state is, is supporting violence.

It’s hard for the vast majority to wrap their head around libertarian philosophy and many of conservatives get it in their head they’re libertarians because they share some subset of the values.

I wouldn’t consider myself an anarchist for example, but from your perspective you probably seem to think I’m advocating for no rulers. That isn’t what libertarians are arguing entirely. It’s more there should be no laws without their being a victim of violence where violence is fairly broadly defined. The left might be for regulations against dumping toxic chemicals in the river… and even though libertarians are largely against regulations, that’s an act of violence that could legislated just like it would be fine to pass a law saying you can’t shoot someone outside of self defense or some sort of voluntary consensual situation (assisted suicide).

I see people arguing for victims frequently, but not all victims are victims of violence. Maybe in the context of drugs or in the context of little old ladies being defrauded.

In the context of drugs it’s hard to argue someone whose taking the drug is a victim of violence given they’re not being drugged generally by means of force of some kind. Putting a substance that has an impact in someones food for instance when they’re not looking might turn it into an issue of violence, but otherwise it’s a consensual act between two parties and even if in some context we’d consider the drug user to have lost control and be a victim… it’s more equivalent to being a victim of the drug, not the dealer.

In the context of little old ladies being defrauded there may be a legitimate argument for protection, but it’s wrong to argue for violence against those not engaging in violence. Fraud is a tricky one. To a great extent it’s up to each of us to be weary of others and not take the bait. There are potential solutions to frauds and scams, but we’ll never solve this type of a problem through the legislature anyway. Suggesting the legislature can solve it mostly just propagates a type of fraud of law enforcement against folks doing things some dislike and is itself a deception on the public that something is being done about it. It’s a problem that can be solved through other means I think. It’s a problem that needs to be addressed through other means. When little old ladies are tricked into sending their retirement monies to Nigerian scammers the scam involves removal of funds from an account that could have limitations on it to make such scams difficult. However instead of having accounts for little old ladies that make it difficult for scammers to scam them they pass laws undermining legitimate business between those who’d rather not take part in that violent system (Ie I object to the heavily regulated banking system). There are a ton of problems that get created when you start dictating through legislation who can transact and who can’t. At the truckers protest in Canada the prime minister took a page from the American playbook and locked the bank accounts of the protesters. Their debit cards, credit cards, and bank accounts were cut off. I may not be a huge fan of the system we’ve got that calls itself democracy, but I will recognize that democracy is undermined when you empower politicians to regulate financial transactions.