Galileo Galilei once said "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
However, in NH even if you do discover the truth, the Court's are denying them, ignoring the facts, and disregarding what the US Court’s above them have already decided. Why would they do this? Because if you are a parent or pro se, it's highly-unlikely you will be able to afford to go to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals after they wasted two years of your time reaching an illogical decision. My suggestion is to ignore the NH Supreme Ct. and appeal directly to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. They may recognize that you are not an attorney and really look at the fraud going on in the Judicial System in NH.
Under NH RSA 169-C:27, the State has a right to charge parent's for reimbursement. However, before agreeing to it, under the same paragraph you are entitled to a hearing first, in the case to be explained, the Mother in the matter was not afforded one prior to a NH State Employee, Matt Barrington, asserting that there was and forcing her into an assented to agreement for reimbursement that she couldn't afford, but that she agreed to have her pay attached by the Reimbursement Unit and taken out of her check. This same employee forgot and/or failed to attach her pay in 2009 so, in 2010, when he realized his mistake he took her to court at which point she cross petitioned not to have to pay for his mistake; however, the District Ct. held her in contempt.
The Supreme Ct. has decided, in it's decision for 2012-0455, Denise-Marie McIntosh v. State of NH , that it is okay for parents to be coerced into signing an assented to agreement as put out by Matt Barrington. They failed to address that in the lower court, Judge Leary, had stayed the attachment following a motion by Matt Barrington by simply stating "denied pending appeal" and recognizing that the mother had filed a De Novo appeal under NH 169-C:28 in the Superior Ct.
However, when the matter came before Judge Garfinkel for a De Novo appeal, who was completely and literally unfamiliar with NH 169-C matters, he denied the De Novo appeal which would have allowed the parent in the matter to re-litigate and instead upheld a right to a Writ of Certiorari, which as shown in this decision by the NH Supreme Ct. was a complete waste of time and money.
Perhaps the mother did not argue her appeal as eloquently as an Attorney, however the The Pl.[’s] Petition “…"however inartfully pleaded" is to be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). See also Maclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2d 83, 86 (CA7 1980); and French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994, 996 (CA7 1976). Obviously, she is not a lawyer just now but a paralegal who does extensive research she clearly pointed out the following:
1. Matt Barrington attached her pay as of 1/7/11 without a court order and after Judge Leary denied his motion for contempt stating "denied pending appeal";
2. Matt Barrington over charged the mother by 298 weeks;
3. Judge Leary recognized the over-charge in his order of 12/10 signifying that the mother was correct and the state was limited to the amount of weeks it could collect under NH RSA 169-C:27 I. (c)
The not so funny and oppressive conclusion is that the order clearly shows the US case law quoted above was completely disregarded by the NH Supreme Ct. and not one of these so called Judges corrected the problems that clearly exist in the final orders: not Judge Leary on reconsideration or clarification, not Judge Garfinkel who clearly has not fully read this law and now the NH Supreme Ct. through their twisted logic and failure to uphold the laws written by legislators. The first circuit court of appeals is out of reach on this matter for this litigant and the Supreme Ct. itself is out of reach for most parents who as of 7/2011 are no longer afforded an attorney in these matters.
Also, it should be noted that in this matter the Mother was charged for the non-offending father's attorney, who was approved by Judge Bamberger contrary to NH 169-C:8 the mother was never made aware of the chargeable aspect or any of her rights at first contact by CPSW Tracy Roukey, because as she testified on 8/26/11, "it wasn’t the law to notify a parent of their rights it was just a recommendation"; and contrary to NH RSA 169-C who through the civil matter under Denise-Marie McIntosh v. State of NH et al 216-2011-CV-00967 has clearly shown that the orders were procured by fraud, when the father hired a Susan Vonderheide to report to the Ct. what the child in the matter said; records finally fully attained 5 years after the start of the matter showed without question that she purposely and maliciously lied, not only to the court but to the child as well.
Now here is the other twisted part of these combined cases, the Mother filed this Appeal 2012-250 to the Supreme Ct. for Access to her records; they of course denied it here, even though all of these laws & rules state parents are entitled to these records. Moreover, it shows that the NH Supreme Court supports covering for State employees. In addition, the State failed to enter discovery into the court file as ordered by a Judge Bamberger who never compelled them further to do so and in fact stating he didn't have to. So why make orders?
The moral is if you fail to provide discovery in a NH Court long enough, like the family court system, you never have to provide it. Just quote this case, it's all chaos without substantiated reasoning.
Liken the NH Court System to Satan and like Mark Twain once questioned, we should be asking:
"Who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?" All we can do is cross our fingers and hope you never get caught in their tangled web, but the truth needs to be revealed time and time again until those responsible are held accountable for their acts.
Be very aware of the players in this unraveling matter, they are the ones you need to stay away from and keep an eye on; people like Susan Vonderheide who deliberately hurt children and families; people like Matt Barrington, a state employee, who gets a commission and bonus for their recovery efforts, push for your hearing in court. And people like Tracy Roukey, Kris Geno, Tracy Gubbins, and Maggie Bishop who blatantly and without conscience lie to the public they are supposed to serve. Kris Geno does it to get her son out of trouble but others are just a bit arrogant, stupid or angry over their own lacking childhoods and like Hitler and Nashua, NH Division previous supervisor Geraldo Pilarski stated to this reporter in 2010, about the abuses in his office, “things happen but we are here for the Greater Good.”
Because in the end, the Civil Matter filed against all of these individuals changed in titles to a defendant not even in the case Denise-Marie McIntosh vs. Lori Ayotte-McIntosh et al. 226-2011-CV-00967 changed from 226-2010-CV-612 Denise-Marie McIntosh v. The State of NH DHHS/DCYF et.al shows that the court is only denying her complaint (which can not be disclosed because it is in the appeal process). But the court held they are guilty based on the facts alleged but Judge Garfunkle, believes the Plaintiff/Parent did not meet the statute of limitations and should have known they were guilty while it was occurring.
These people remind me of a comment by Helen Keller who said, "We may have found a cure for most evils; but we have found no remedy for the worst of them all, the apathy of human beings."
No comments:
Post a Comment