Help Ward Bird of Moultonborough

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by wuwu

Please read the following, it has clearly stated facts. Statements written by persons who have had dealings with Ms. Harris.
http://freewardbird.org/

wuwu...
There is no debate...everyone knows Harris' elevator stops about half way up. It's been discussed and accepted as fact...the arguement has been properly suported. I know her a bit...she live in my town, and was in the paper regularly for several months. Every neighbor of hers, says..."coo coo for coco puffs".
And Rusty...seriously, I'm not looking for an arguement...I just want to know why noone focuses on the fact that he was given a chance to plead this out.
I think my theory might hold water.

[Argie's Wife]

Executive Council To Consider Pardon Hearing For Ward Bird

Bird Is Serving Mandatory Minimum Three-Year Sentence.

CONCORD, N.H. -- New Hampshire's Executive Council could decide Wednesday whether to hold a hearing on farmer Ward Bird's request for a pardon for brandishing a firearm at a woman who trespassed on his property.

Christine Harris, who opposes the pardon, said she was looking for a piece of property that was for sale before arriving at Bird's remote property. She said Bird waved his handgun at her and screamed for her to leave.

Bird maintains he kept the gun in the back waistband of his pants and took it out only when he was about to re-enter the house to remove the ammunition.
He was convicted of criminal threatening with a firearm, which carries a mandatory minimum three-year sentence.

Source: http://www.wmur.com/news/26519751/detail.html

[Heaven]

I am unclear on this point maybe someone with some legal sense can speak to this -- in this "he said she said" case, there WAS another person on the property and very likely in a position to make a statement about what happened, and that is Ward Bird's wife. Testimony has her on the porch when the woman first drives into the dooryard, then apparently she disappears from this whole case. What's up with that?

[KPW]

sa meredith " the term "benefit of the doubt" has no place in the court room." I thought beyond reasonable doubt was a major factor in a trial. Why would someone who knew they were innocent, plead guilty?

[fatlazyless]

Say hey.....there's some people locked up in prison across the U.S. for years and years who got convicted by a prosecutor determined to prosecute who has a very supporting witness to question before a jury when all along the imprisoned person was not guilty. Believe it is called the DNA Project or something, where old DNA evidence gets brought forward as new evidence.

With about 80 different state representatives, mostly all Republicans, supporting a pardon, who knows, maybe Gov Lynch will not use his veto power? On the other hand, Gov Lynch has a law degree from Georgetown Law School in Washington D.C., so he may be reluctant to overturn the decision of a twelve person jury.

All things considered, Gov Lynch should do something like let a pardon go though for time served plus a two year probation sentence similar to what was originally offered in the plea bargain. Even if Ward did wave a gun around, he never fired any shots, so the sentence does not fit the crime. People get annoyed and wave guns around all the time and it usually never goes anywhere in the legal system.

............

Hey....yesterday's Union Leader had a big, 4" x 6" color close-up photo of Ward on the upper half of the front page along with a big article on his story. The background prison furnishings did not look like they came from Ippolito's Furniture store in Meredith.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by KPW

sa meredith " the term "benefit of the doubt" has no place in the court room." I thought beyond reasonable doubt was a major factor in a trial. Why would someone who knew they were innocent, plead guilty?

KPW...how do you, me, or anyone else know he is innocent? We don't. But with the plea, everyone is home, warm and comfy....that's a FACT!

[NoRegrets]

The symantics of words are interesting in this thread. We were a nation that used to work based on the intent of the law and rarely used the courtroom. Now we only look at the technicality of the the. We read threads like lawyers and tear apart every sentance for meaning and legally binding opinions.

Oh for the good old days - Ward would have never gone to trial. There would have been enough evidence to have settled this on the side of the street or the back of a car.

In today's world if you do not report everything anything and something goes wrong you can be implicated by society, loose your livelyhood, and become the subject of an Internet Thread. I feel bad for teachers, doctors, and anyone responsible for groups that share common assets.

Best of luck to the apeal or pardon process!

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

KPW...how do you, me, or anyone else know he is innocent? We don't. But with the plea, everyone is home, warm and comfy....that's a FACT!

Only an Idiot would plead guilty to something they didn't do because it was the easy way out !! Thats the act of a person with No self respect and No moral conviction ! It is Not the act of a person who believes in themself and the truth, is proud of who they are and what they stand for.
God help this country and it's future generations if the people with the "give up and take the easy way out" mentality ever prevail.

[Dogg]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

Only an Idiot would plead guilty to something they didn't do because it was the easy way out !! Thats the act of a person with No self respect and No moral conviction ! It is Not the act of a person who believes in themself and the truth, is proud of who they are and what they stand for.
God help this country and it's future generations if the people with the "give up and take the easy way out" mentality ever prevail.

Ward would not be the first person to claim he was not guilty even though he was. Our jails are filled with THOUSANDS of these people and our courtrooms are filled everyday with them!

The facts are, Ward was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers. There seems to be a thin line between people being upset that he was found guilty and upset over what the punishment was (3-6 years.)

If the judge was able to impose what he thought was fair ("The bottom line is that, but for RSA 651:II-g I, would be sentencing Mr. Bird to twelve months in the House of Corrections, with immediate work release, with the balance after
six months to be served on home confinement with electronic monitoring at Mr. Bird's expense to be followed by two years of probation as a fair") would everyone be up in arms?

It is the LAW you need should be fighting to change. Is it fair that he needs to spend more time in jail than someone (Blizzard) who killed another human, NO; however he should have to do his time for the crime he was found GUILTY of and again, it is unfortunate that time is 3-6 years per the State of New Hampshire.

I believe he will not get a pardon, but will have the ears of the legislature and their mouths and he will be out @ 12:01am of whatever day he is eligible to be released to home confinement.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

Only an Idiot would plead guilty to something they didn't do because it was the easy way out !! Thats the act of a person with No self respect and No moral conviction ! It is Not the act of a person who believes in themself and the truth, is proud of who they are and what they stand for.
God help this country and it's future generations if the people with the "give up and take the easy way out" mentality ever prevail.

MarkNH...I'll try hard to not go back and forth again.
But really...if what I am about to say is irrational, you tell me.
I had no opinion about this case until I found this thread. I started reading it, and truth be told, as I researched it thru this method and google, my opinion changed two or three times. At first I thought, why did this guy over react to a stranger...but that was probably wrong.
Then I thought, wow this woman is a whack job, he should be free...but that was wrong. Then I found out he has a history of doing battle over the sale of property...but really, that should not matter.
The FACT is this, MarkNH. YOU...WERE...NOT...THERE! So, you're opinion is no more right or wrong than mine.
THE FACT is, if he had pleaded, he would not be in jail. End!
You say only an idiot would plea...I say, only an idiot would have taken a shot at a trial with a mandatory 3 year sentence, when he was offered a way out. By the way, idiot is not the right word...but you used it, so I stayed consistent. I in no way can say he is an idiot...you see, I don't know him, and I WAS NOT THERE.
If I state, he could have pleaded it out, and not be in jail now...that is a fact, not open to discussion.
I honestly feel, with no ill will toward you, that you are just to close to this to look at it from both sides. He is a friend...so I'm sure this causes you pain, and I am sorry for that. But please, don't state what is your opinion, as fact.
Remember, the jury found him guilty...and as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) a judge has the power to overturn a verdict he thinks the jury blatantly got it wrong. But he did not over turn it. So, I guess, if I assume you have this right...quite a few people were hoodwinked? Maybe that is the case...but I don't know. I can only say what I think might be the case.

One more thing...almost forgot, as it is the most important part.
To all those who say...."why would he plead guilty to something he didn't do".. really...have you not thought it thru??!! The sentence is MANDATORY. So, if he plead guilty, he would still be in jail. When you plead something out, you agree to plead guilty, and the state agrees to charge a lesser charge. Possibly something he did indeed do (poor behavior...whatever...being mean). So, the guilty adimission would not have been the same charge he went to trial with. He would have been pleading guilty to something he probably did do. Come on people...think it thru a bit.
We should all be attacking the law. Attack that. Scream about that...I believe, for anything else, the states hands are tied.

[Heaven]

This thread bounces back and forth between discussion of the guilt or innocence of Mr. Bird and the mandatory sentencing law.

After reading through the trial transcripts, I have lots and lots of questions about the event which I am sure the jury also had, and brought up and discussed. I can see how they would have come to their verdict.

I believe there is a solid reason for mandatory sentencing that works in 98% of all cases but there should be some board review for those other 2%.

[songkrai]

Either you are FOR mandatory sentencing or AGAINST mandatory sentencing.

You cannot have it both ways.

Creating another layer of big government is not the solution.

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

I'll try hard to not go back and forth again.

The FACT is this, MarkNH. YOU...WERE...NOT...THERE! So, you're opinion is no more right or wrong than mine.

I do not wish to go back and forth again either for it solves nothing.
The Fact is. Neither one of us were there !
The difference in our points of view is simple.
I am basing my opinion of Ward and this situation on my personal knowledge of him.
Your basing your opinion of Ward and this situation on what you have read in newspapers.
That difference alone, IMO. Makes me a better judge of the mans character.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

I do not wish to go back and forth again either for it solves nothing.
The Fact is. Neither one of us were there !
The difference in our points of view is simple.
I am basing my opinion of Ward and this situation on my personal knowledge of him.
Your basing your opinion of Ward and this situation on what you have read in newspapers.
That difference alone, IMO. Makes me a better judge of the mans character.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Fine then OK....so I take it you are of the mind set that he did not do this thing. I can deal with that.
I have a huge issue with the crowd that is screaming, "free Ward Bird" because they think...aw, shucks...give him a break. He's a good guy, and the punishment is too harsh. That group should be screaming "Change the law"...
They should have no issue with the state and it's officials...they were simply carrying out the madatory sentence. Freeing him, if he did it, is not an option.
Now MarkNH... I would ask...how did the jury, judge (who could have stepped in and say, "no, the jury got it wrong) and defense attorney fail Ward. How can it be they (prosecution) proved something that did not happen?
Even Blizzard's lawyer got her off of what everyone with half a brain knows was an OUI. The evidence was overwhelming...yet he proved it to be circumstancial.
Myself...I believe this man should not be in jail. Punishment too severe for crime. So, I guess my issue is with the law. I can't blame a referee for simply enforcing a rule...I can indeed blame the rule though.

[Heaven]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

I do not wish to go back and forth again either for it solves nothing.
The Fact is. Neither one of us were there !
The difference in our points of view is simple.
I am basing my opinion of Ward and this situation on my personal knowledge of him. Your basing your opinion of Ward and this situation on what you have read in newspapers. That difference alone, IMO. Makes me a better judge of the mans character.
We will just have to agree to disagree.

Sometimes good people, people of character, make a slip in action or judgement. It isn't hard to understand how one might not realize how they are coming across especially in an emotional moment. It could easily be NOT a matter of the truth verses a lie, but of perceptions of oneself that don't match well with what someone else sees or feels.
Happens all the time, and that takes nothing away from someone's character. (And, I read the court documents, not only the newspaper. Did you?)

[MarkinNH]

I believe that if anybody interested in putting forth the effort to do the reading, they will find that the efforts to change the law are already underway.

[Sal]

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...698/-1/CITIZEN

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Sal

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...698/-1/CITIZEN

So in a 'he said she said" case, they took the word of a convicted felon?! Unbelievable!

[sa meredith]

So what happens at the hearing? I mean, I read the article, and while there is an endless supply of character witnesses, and he is well like in the community...none that matters, does it? I would think the council would only pardon if new evidence is introduced...or do I have this wrong? It has already been ruled on that Harris' past is irrelavent...the judge made that decision already...so her past won't matter, I think. Wouldn't they need new evidence? Or maybe her past is the new evidence.
Anyway...a farmer all his life, living out in the sticks, working hard all day every day....prison has got to literally be killing this guy.

[Happy Gourmand]

I wonder what criteria will be used to come to a conclusion of whether or not to pardon him...and what the level of the pardon will be. Keep in mind that whatever they decide, that the Governor can VETO their recommendation and keep him in for the term of his sentence. Can they pardon his sentence AND his felony conviction? Can they "modify" his sentence and impose some other restrictions? Would a pardon lead to a flood of requests? There are way more questions than answers.
It seems like there would have to be some really compelling reason for this appeal to be successful.

[jrc]

Below is text of the NH Constitution relating to the Governor's power to pardon people. He can pardon for any reason. It's not like an appeal which has strict guidelines. Presidents and Governors can issue full or partial pardons for any reason.

If you look GWB used his pardoning power to reduce Scooter Libby's punishment and set him free but didn't pardon the actual crime. He is still a convicted criminal. WJC gave a full pardon to Susan McDougal, she is not.

The Governor has wide discretion about reasons and remedies.

NH Constitution

[Art.] 52. [Pardoning Power.] The power of pardoning offenses, except such as persons may be convicted of before the senate, by impeachment of the house, shall be in the governor, by and with the advice of council: But no charter of pardon, granted by the governor, with advice of the council, before conviction, shall avail the party pleading the same, notwithstanding any general or particular expressions contained therein, descriptive of the offense or offenses intended to be pardoned.

[sa meredith]

I guess what I'm saying is...the appeal is not based on the "Come on now. He's really a well liked guy, and all around good, solid citizen" defense. I would think the council could care less about how many people wear "Free Ward Bird" shirts, or put "Free Bird" signs on their front lawn.
I would think they need new evidence. The fact that the crime carries a mandatory 3 year sentence isn't their fault.
If they say he is guitly, but reduce the jail time (can they even do that?), they are going to set a precedent, and everyone in jail in NH for the same thing is going to get in line to point to it.

[jrc]

Well GWB did just that, he reduced Libby's sentence. So I'm assuming the that our Governor has the same discretion. If you can issue full pardons, it seems like partials pardons would be OK.

Pardons don't set a legal precedent. Obviously someone else convicted of the same crime can apply for a pardon. But they can't go to a judge and say he got pardoned so you have to set me free. Thousands of people have been pardoned, it doesn't effect the law that convicted them. This is totally seperate from the normal appeals process. Appeals usually need some reason, a mistake in law, new evidence, a mistake at trial or something.

Pardons are outside of all that. It's another check and balance. An executive check on the judicial system.

The pardon is a safety valve for special cases. Even if everything is correct, the law, the trial, the evidence, there can still be a pardon. The only requirement is to convince the Governor that the pardon is a good idea. It applies only to that person and that crime.

I don't know enough about this case to render an opinion, I'm really addressing pardons in general.

[sa meredith]

Yeah...I get it....perhaps if someone had a terminal illness, and only months to live. That might be a reason.
Or if they somehow became unable to care for themselves, and needed 24 hour care. That might be a reason.
Or it turned out the judge was "on the take". That might be a reason.
But the, "Awww shucks...come on now...everyone loves this guy. Haven't you seen all the signs on Mou Neck road? And all the Tshirts?" Is that a reason?
I'm just curious what info they are going to bring to the table at the hearing.

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

Only an Idiot would plead guilty to something they didn't do because it was the easy way out !! Thats the act of a person with No self respect and No moral conviction ! It is Not the act of a person who believes in themself and the truth, is proud of who they are and what they stand for.
God help this country and it's future generations if the people with the "give up and take the easy way out" mentality ever prevail.

Kind of ironic don't you think? He refuses to plead guilty in this case because he believes he did no wrong. However, in the past, he supposedly "took the blame" for something he didn't do (the wreckless shooting in 2002)?

[KPW]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

KPW...how do you, me, or anyone else know he is innocent? We don't. But with the plea, everyone is home, warm and comfy....that's a FACT!

It does not matter what you or I believe. It matters what he believes. He did not take the plea because he was not going to admit guilt to something he felt he did not do.