Follow by Email

Friday, October 19, 2012

Who's judging New Hampshire's judges? Only the Legislators ...

The excerpts I included in this article came from a Concrod Mointor article, written by a Dr. Robert O. Wilson, chairman of the New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee (NHJCC), he said “it does not surprise me that there is public confusion over the role of the House Committee for Redress of Grievances as it may relate to judicial matters.”  I have included his direct quotes here but rewritten what in fact, is the reality of the situation.
I think the confusion starts with the fact that the people before the redress of grievance committee have already been before the Judicial Conduct Committee, complaints including conflicts of interest, a judge sitting on a criminal case and then behind closed doors a parallel case with DCYF, Judges demeaning women in their court, refusing evidence by males and females, bias against either sex, refusing to answer motions, simply keeping them in the file and pushed aside and the marital masters not following Rules 12-14 all ignored by the Judicial Conduct Committee and it is in large part why the legislators finally ended the marital master program. 
Judges have codes of conduct to be followed and the NHJCC has repeatedly and consistently failed to hold them accountable to the public they serve and those codes of ethics.  Which is why, “The New Hampshire Constitution, while establishing the three branches of government - executive, legislative, and judicial “ may have “heavily weighted the scope of governance to the side of the Legislature.” However it is more likely they saw mans greed, and wanted to “established the Redress Article “for the purpose of accountability for "the wrongs that the people suffer" at the hands of government.”
“Dormant for many years, the Committee for Redress of Grievances was re-established in 2011;” to a large number of complaints by citizens of this state. “Many of its hearings have dealt with citizens unhappy with judicial decisions and the judiciary in general. Sometimes, with the encouragement of legislators, aggrieved former litigants tell their story to the committee, but the committee goes no further to investigate a claim of judicial malfeasance. I have to disagree, this committee requires real evidence of these individuals to present their grievance, many whom I helped direct where to get the evidence to prove their point and highlight the concerns that exist within the Judicial System“In some instances, the committee votes overwhelmingly in favor of the grievant and threatens to bring a bill to the House to impeach the judge.”  Yes, this has happened based on real evidence that the committee took hours and days to pour over, unlike the Judicial conduct committee who meets once a month for a couple of hours to pour over many complaints.
Dr. Wilson, a retired oral surgeon with no legal background, finds “this disturbing, because the public hears only one side of what is often a complex and emotionally charged story.” The committee has repeatedly asked the judicial branch for their side and they refuse. What is disturbing is that this Doctor is chairman of the New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee.

"A long history"

"The Judicial Conduct Committee was established more than 35 years ago as an independent, lay-dominated body charged with investigating complaints against judicial officers and, where appropriate, imposing or recommending discipline for misconduct as defined by the Code of Judicial Conduct.
In 2006, the appointing bodies were changed so that the speaker of the House and the Senate president each appoint one lay member; the governor appoints two lay members; the New Hampshire Bar Association appoints two members, one of whom must be a lay person; and the Supreme Court appoints five members: one representing each of the three lower courts, a clerk of court and one lay member. There is also an alternate panel, which hears cases involving a member of the standing committee." hmm I wonder if that happen when complaints were lodged against a Lyn Aaby whose husband sits on the board? A GAL & NH Attorney who in the beginning stages of  a divorce case, gave pick up and drop offs to a girlfriend of the father in the matter, oh who was also her client in her own case, and did not disclose the conflict of interest and intentionally misrepresentative herself to the mother and Judge in the case, the result of the JCC was that there was no conflict, this was also held by the NH GAL Board, who charged a $100.00 to file the complaint. However, we can sincerely thank the executive council who received the exact same information and made sure that Governor Lynch's recommendation that Lyn Aaby become a Judge was DENIED.
"Every state has a similar committee to handle complaints of judicial misconduct using a code of judicial conduct. The New Hampshire code was developed over many years to define how judges, masters, clerks and court reporters will conduct themselves to assure the public that it can feel confident cases will be judged fairly."  If it was done fairly it wouldn't be confidential and hidden.
“The JCC meets at least monthly and, after a thorough investigation of a report of misconduct, will either dismiss the report or carry the matter forward.” Right here it shows that they take less time with the complaints than the legislators who actually heard, reviewed, and analyzed what was brought to them over weeks and long hearings.
"Should the committee find that a judge, master, clerk, etc., violated the code, it will determine an appropriate sanction, even so far as recommending suspension to the Supreme Court. But the JCC cannot overturn a judicial decision. That remedy is accorded only to an appellate court, which in New Hampshire is the state Supreme Court."  The key here is the word "Should" meaning "ought to" but they have not. 
"It is not uncommon for someone reporting what he or she believes to be judicial misconduct - often submitting 20 to 100 pages or more, photographs, and recordings to document their report - only to learn that the committee did not agree and cannot change the ruling or substitute another judge to hear their case."  It is only too common that the JCC never agrees. The one Judge recently removed was due to public fraud not a complaint in her court.
"If litigants report to the JCC that a judge yelled at them, or was biased in some way, was rude or demeaned their testimony or didn't follow the law, the JCC may ask its executive secretary to obtain the sound recording of the trial and/or the transcript for the members to hear and read for themselves."   Again, litigants have been providing audio and transcripts of Judges threatening, berating and/ or being bias. But we'll see what they say shortly ... about a Judge who tells a litigant that if they appeal his order for a GAL, that the party clearly cannot afford that he will recuse himself. Furthermore, Judges that simply push motions to the side and refuse to rule on them and cause more chaos in the courts, they haven't found fault with this to date, lets see if they are put on notice if they will.
"If the committee votes to move to the next stage of inquiry - a complaint - it will ask for a response from the judge, master, clerk, etc. Should the committee be dissatisfied with the response, it can conduct an additional investigation, leading to the filing of a statement of formal charges and a public hearing, should there be clear and convincing evidence of judicial misconduct. Reaching that level is rare - perhaps once or twice a year out of 80 or 90 reports of judicial misconduct."   You have to look at this "clear and convincing evidence" line because it is the lowest standard used in Child Protection Cases to take parents rights away to collect federal money and it goes through all the time. Try to hold a Judge accountable and well as you can see from the JCC findings compared to the same evidence being given to legislators that took more time to listen and review real evidence it's not happening, they are not Judging NH Judges they are covering up for them. 
Don't even get me started on the NH Bar Association... vote yes on Question 2 we need a constitutional amendment. 

Friday, October 12, 2012

Another Reason to Vote yes for NH Constitutional Amendment

Marital Masters on their Way Out but....are the scales between corruption/money and real justice balanced?

Apparently not, here is another example of the Old boys network in NH.  Supreme-Court-AO-2012-08 describes how these marital masters who were appointed with 3 year terms will get a great benefit package at the cost of indigent families being denied an attorney in NH RSA 169-C cases and no supplemental payments for Guardian Ad litems in NH RSA 461-A cases.

Keep an eye and ear open for recommended appointments of Marital Masters to Judges positions with the approval of the Executive Council  not all of them but many do not deserve it.  If you have had an adverse experience with a marital master that is being considered for a Judicial appointment  go to the meeting and simply sign in, to have an opportunity to be heard - bring any documentation with you; please, please go you will save so many more families heartache, by ensuring they are not appointed, check nominations here.

When you read through the order above, please note that it takes awhile for legislators to get a bill through the house; they started this one in 2011 to get rid of the reappointments of marital masters and the Judicial Branch in a blatant effort to cover their comrades, over the people they are suppose to serve as stated in the first paragraph issued this order NH Supreme Court Administrative order 2011-05 which starts right off with "The anticipated legislative appropriation" instead of looking for ways to protect the community they are suppose to serve, they are as always only looking to protect each other.

Anyone who has ever tried to submit a judicial conduct complaint knows that it will yield no results; the reason why? Is because they are governed by the rules made by the Supreme Court,  which is why we need to vote yes for the constitutional amendment enabling the legislative branch to take back rule-making authority from the courts of NH.

The Judicial branch is suppose to enforce laws not make rules to get around them.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Visibility into DCYF personnel records - Read all about it...

Finally some visibility.  What the normal public views as a conflict of interest, was met by the short term of a Commissioner Morton, when he accused Sylvia Gayle of a conflict of interest. You have to read these findings to believe it and see the bias compared to the next set of links and findings under other Commissioner's, this board is anything but consistent, but some very useful findings in additional to the one on a Tracy Roukey, a CPSW found under demotions (really, what took so long).

In New Hampshire

DCYF demotions

DCYF Letters of Warning and these are the ones being appealed

DCYF Conflict of Interest only one additional

DCYF Application of rules

DCYF Letter of Warnings

DCYF Suspension without pay

DCYF employee policies and procedures that they are suppose to be following and it appears that the protocols established here are part of the mix

DCYF Training and Development a bit scary

So the next time you have one of these CPSW's on the stand and the other side objects to you or your attorney asking about their work records; they are not private more links can be found here under their personnel appeals board.

Go get em ... and do not back down! Keep searching for answers...

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Judge describes Court System exploiting women.

Former Judge - describes  how the American court system is trained to exploit women.

See the video here:

Judges are trained and repeatedly told not to believe women. Keep with coverage here.  Because the only station in NH WMUR appears to be just as bias as our court system. 

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Do we or do we not, want laws passed by our Legislature to be enforced?

This article in the Nashua Telegraph today talks about the balance of government by a new yet old amendment.

I think the best part of the article above, highlights what these two branches have been arguing over in the quotes below:

 "The amendment would change Article 73 of the state constitution, giving the legislative branch explicit authority to overrule the Supreme Court’s rule-making authority for the judicial branch. 

 Specifically, laws passed by the Legislature would have precedence if they conflict with rules adopted by the chief justice and the rest of the Supreme Court. 

 The chief and the court would still govern the judicial branch and the state’s court system as usual unless a conflict arose." 

 As a legal and community researcher, lets look at those two paragraphs, because I have to simply point out that the people not backing this, do not know the law or how our government has been formed and/or lack the ability to be accountable.

I mean is it really that hard to figure out? Do we or do we not, want laws passed by the Legislature to be there to protect us?

 The Supreme Court and many Judges would prefer that you have access to justice only based on "precedence" in reality meaning the preference of any particular Judge at any given time, our Judge's by all accounts appear to be human beings. As such, human beings are flawed and come with varying shades of gray and yes, each has their own unique flawed prejudice's. As such, our founding fathers had the foresight to see man's (and women's) greed and created a separation of powers.

The legislative branch is entrusted with making laws, the Judicial branch is entrusted with upholding those laws; not overriding them with their own set of rules. They also are entrusted with letting us know if those laws made by the legislative branch are unconstitutional. Information on all branches can be better articulated in this article. I hope this starts to paint a better picture and hopefully a well known concept about our government's checks and balance system for a historical look back check the the Federalist Papers and the framers original attempts of the authors to explain the constitution being adopted. 

If we accept that the NH Legislative branches role is to create laws, and then allow them to be merely overridden by a conflict with "rules" adopted by the chief justice and the rest of the Supreme Court, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for giving them so much power, that they continue to miss use it and hurt the public they are suppose to serve and treat equally, because they will continue to be accountable to no-one.

Friday, October 5, 2012

Victim Rights

Nolle prosequi or commonly known as Null process is a prosecutor's decision not to pursue charges. As a victim you have rights and one of those rights is to be privy to any plea bargain offered to someone who hurt you.

The EMT's in this story were denied that right and so much more, for the full story see Victim Rights

If you have been the victim of a crime you have rights see Crime Victim Rights by State

Part Two of this series on Speak Up

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Checks & Balances make it simple stupid

When a piece such as, this is unsigned;it should simply be ignored. 

(above link to telegraph article communicating mis-information about what they think the separation of powers is.) 

The Legislative branch is creating a check and balance system against the Judicial Branch, 

because they are out of control and do not follow their own rules and their answer to when 

this happens surrounds "each Judge has the discretion to move away from the rules" which 

is simply causing havoc. 

CACR 26 is a check and balance against the Judicial Branch, one which should have never 

been given away in the first place. The same way the Courts rule that some laws passed by 

the legislative branch are unconstitutional. CACR 26 checks and balances the Judicial branch 

creating accountability. Ignore the rhetoric and look at the basics. 

Because the next time someone is complaining about the Judicial system, it might 

be someone you don't know, or it may be you.

Child Protection Government Abuse 169-C The Process

Knowing your rights, Standing up for yourself and Speaking Up

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."  Winston Churchill 

Let Kevin Avard know about the problems your encountering;

Speak Up, Host Kevin Avard sits down and talks with Independent Paralegal Denise McIntosh about a variety of issues having to do with dealings of the Family Courts

In NH the Child Protection law is NH RSA 169-C which can be found by clicking here type in 169-C
click on:

Summary: TITLE XII PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE CHAPTER 169-C CHILD PROTECTION ACT Section 169-C:1 169-C:1 Short Title. — This chapter shall be known as the Child Protection Act.Source. 1979, 361:2, eff. Aug. 22, 1979.. Section 169-C:2 169-C:2 Purpose. — &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp I. It is the purpose of this chapter, through the

you will then end up here General Court RSA 169:C

Read this law find our what your rights are.  This law talks about what your rights are if DCYF is contacting you.

The Process with DCYF:

Central Intake - receives a complaint they check for red flags supposedly and they check records to see if there was a call before on the same family.

Social Worker - a social worker follows up with a phone call or by stopping by your home and leaving a card.
1) you don't have to call them back they have 60 days to continue to try to reach you before they will simply label the case unfounded.
2) If you end up speaking with them and agree to meet to show your child is fine, it does not have to be at your home it can be a restaurant or location that you feel safe.
3) Ask them to bring a copy of the Central Intake Report about your family; if they say they have to check with a supervisor, tell them you want them to bring it with them and you know you have a right to it.
4) at first Contact they are suppose to give you this pamphlet

"Always be ready to speak your mind, and a base man will avoid you." William Blake