To The Daily Sun,

To be attacked in letters by Dick Burchell, Norm Silber, and Michael Sylvia, all in the space of two days, may be the pinnacle of success for me. A trifecta!

With regard to Burchell, who seemed to suggest that he cannot be a misogynist (despite calling me a harridan, which he did not address) because he likes and respects a woman (his older sister) and has contempt for a man (my husband), the defense seems a bit thin. And when is the last time you heard a man referred to as screechy?

With regard to Silber, its a bit worrisome to find that a lawyer of his self-proclaimed stature does not know the difference between criminal and civil law. He claimed that no adverse inference can be drawn from someone taking the 5th Amendment NONE, as he proclaimed broadly in all caps, as if to shout out how right he is. But how wrong he is. The U.S. Supreme Court (Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976)) expressly stated that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence against them: the Amendment does not preclude the inference where the privilege is claimed by a party to a civil cause. Baxter, at 318. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has also ruled that an adverse inference may be drawn in a non-criminal proceeding from a partys assertion of a 5th Amendment right not to testify. Downing v. Monitor Publishing Co., 120 N.H. 383 (1980). Lets hope that Mr. Silber brushes up on his constitutional law and learns the difference between criminal and civil matters before he handles future cases for clients, and before he gives any more lectures to the public on constitutional law. One more suggestion to Mr. Silber: The Jane Fonda analogy, as referring to me, is becoming a bit repetitive. Time to fling some fresh mud, perhaps?

Finally, to Rep. Sylvia, who (ironically?) claimed in his letter that many people have expressed their gratitude to him for taking a stand on the issue (of property rights). Some Belknap County residents might have preferred that Mr. Sylvia take THE stand, i.e. testify about the facts, rather than take a stand. We are still left with a situation where Rep. Sylvia felt above the law and refused to state how he disposed of sewage at his illegal residence. The judge who heard the case brought against Sylvia by the Town of Belmont ruled against him, and it is easy to see why.

Ruth Larson

Alton

More here:

A trifecta of attack letters, and all are wrong - The Laconia Daily Sun