by Garret Ean
June 1 2013
While a motion to continue is hardy any indicator, Robin Hood and friends’ legal conflict is off to a promising start as the first disagreement in the city’s lawsuit against the Merry (wo)Men was found in the light most favorable to the defense. Having first received the foundational paperwork of the lawsuit on May 9, last week the six defendants received notice of a preliminary hearing scheduled in superior court for Monday, June 10. I had been scheduled to be out of town for a few days leading up to and on the hearing date, so I filed a motion to continue, asking for either all parties’ hearings to be rescheduled, or to have a hearing scheduled solely for myself. No stranger to courtrooms myself, I have filed countless motions to continue with courts across New Hampshire, and have not yet had one denied. It was not surprising that the city attorney might object, and reading his objection, you would think that the situation was dire.
As stated in the City’s Verified Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief, the seriousness of the situation warrants immediate consideration and action by the Court; the City and its Parking Enforcement Officers would be prejudiced by any delay in this proceeding.
What exactly will ‘the city’ present as damages in this case? They have yet to cite a specific claim against Robin Hooders other than vague allegations of ‘harassment’. Attorney Mullins seems so convinced that Robin Hooders pose such a potential threat that even delaying their preliminary hearing one day could mean chaos in the streets of Keene. Mullins’ objection was denied, the continuance granted, and a new hearing date has been set for June 11 at 2:30pm.