N.H. Fraud in Non-Profit Organizations Fraud ... oophs Kelly Ayotte

This is getting to be a very expensive state to live in if only; because, of the following practices of fraud through non-profits in the live free or die or state;

Coincidentally while Kelly Ayotte AG from 2004 - was suppose to be on watch do we really want her for a Vice President? The rest of the country be warned and Romney really there isn't any better choices? The insets below are public record and links are provided to the site if no direct link its a piece under wikipedia in relationship to Ayotte. My comments are in italics.

1st waste, fraud and abuse in the state administration of the NH Medicaid Program - http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111206/NEWS06/111209916  to the tune of $35.8 million for tax-payers; they tried to say they shouldn't have received it in the first place - the point they took it in 2004, did the AG investigate? nope;

2nd http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120430/NEWS06/704309936 hearings underway against the NH Local Government Center this may only cost tax-payers here $100 million http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20120429-NEWS-204290342 if you check their site they tidy up lose ends by training our "Newly Elected Officials with Local Officials Workshops" conflict of interest or what -  http://www.nhlgc.org/about/whatshappening_detail.asp?row=1 keep up todate at http://sos.nh.gov/LGC_Admin_Hearing.aspx

3. Non-profits in NH currently do not disclose campaign contributions on a State and Federal level to the sec of State; a vote is coming up to require them do so, cover here: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120509/NEWS06/705099926
The below is copied from Wikipedia (these things sometimes have a way of disappearing when Mrs. Ayotte is around); however, its verified and still on going in many cases as shown below: My comments in italics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Ayotte

4. Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England
"In 2003, the Federal District Court for the District of New Hampshire found the New Hampshire law requiring parental notification of a minor's abortion, the Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act, unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. In 2004, New Hampshire Attorney General Peter Heed appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling. In 2004, Ayotte, having replaced Heed as New Hampshire Attorney General, appealed the Appeals Court's ruling to the Supreme Court, over the objection of incoming Democratic governor John Lynch. Ayotte personally argued the case before the Supreme Court. Governor John Lynch, upon assuming office as governor, submitted an amicus curiae brief in opposition to the Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act."

"In Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling by the District Court and remanded the case back to the District Court. The Supreme Court held that (1) "invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief" and (2) "when confronting a statute's constitutional flaw, this Court tries to limit the solution to the problem, preferring to enjoin only the statute's unconstitutional applications while leaving the others in force or to sever its problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact."

5. "In 2007, the New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act was repealed by the New Hampshire legislature, rendering a rehearing by the District Court moot. In 2008, a Federal District Court judge ordered the New Hampshire Department of Justice to pay Planned Parenthood's attorney fees and court costs, finding that Planned Parenthood's position had been upheld at every level of judicial review. In April 2009, Ayotte, as Attorney General, authorized a payment of $300,000 to Planned Parenthood."

6. Ayotte has prosecuted two high profile capital murder cases.

Murder of police officer Michael Briggs

"One case resulted in both a conviction and death penalty sentence for the killing of an on-duty Manchester Police Officer in 2006. Ayotte has been criticized for pursuing the death penalty in the case, as opposed to seeking a life sentence without parole. Prosecutions seeking the death penalty typically cost several million dollars to adjudicate. To date, the state of New Hampshire has spent $2.7 million on the case.The death penalty in the case is currently being appealed. The defendant in this case is the sole inmate on New Hampshire's Death Row. New Hampshire has not carried out the death penalty in over seventy years and lacks an execution chamber. The New Hampshire Department of Corrections estimated in 2008 that it would cost $3.4 million to build and staff a chamber to carry out death by lethal injection. Several non-profit groups have argued that the money spent seeking the death penalty sentence would be better spent on assistance to the surviving families of the victims. In 2009, the New Hampshire legislature established the Commission to Study the Death Penalty in New Hampshire to study whether New Hampshire should abolish the death penalty. Some have also questioned whether race and class played a role in the jury's decision to impose a death penalty sentence in the case. The victim in the case was white and the defendant an unemployed indigent black man. Ninety-five percent of the New Hampshire population is white. Members of the slain police officer's family have appeared in television ads for her Senate campaign praising her leadership."

"Emails exchanged in 2006 between Ayotte and her 2010 campaign strategist Rob Varsalone, in which they discussed both her political future and her decision to seek the death penalty in the Briggs case, became public during her 2010 campaign for the Senate. Her Democratic opponent, Paul Hodes, accused Ayotte of using the case for political gain and politicizing the case."

"Two former prosecutors turned personal-injury attorneys alleged that Ayotte's conduct in the case violated American Bar Association standards of conduct which state that "in making the decision to prosecute, the prosecutor should give no weight to the personal or political advantages or disadvantages which might be involved" and "should not permit his or her professional judgment or obligations to be affected by his or her own political, financial, business, property or personal interests."

John Brooks case

"In the second capital murder case that Ayotte prosecuted in 2008, a Rockingham County jury convicted a wealthy white businessman of capital murder for hiring three men to kill a handyman whom the defendant believed had stolen from him. In that case, the jury rejected the death penalty and elected to sentence the defendant to life in prison without parole even though the jury had found that aggravating factors had outweighed mitigating factors in their consideration of the sentence. Some have questioned whether race and class played a role in the jury's decision not to impose the death penalty in the case."  NH Law/RSA is kinda of tricky in NH check RSA 630.

7. Financial Resources Mortgage fraud

"Ayotte has been criticized for her former office's alleged refusal to investigate charges against mortgage investment firm Financial Resources Mortgage (FRM) which has been accused of orchestrating a $80–100 million Ponzi scheme. Scott Farah, the former president of Financial Resources Mortgage, was accused of swindling investors out of millions of dollars, using investor funds to pay other investors and his own personal expenses, and has agreed, under a plea agreement, to plead guilty to federal wire and mail fraud charges in exchange for a nearly 20-year prison sentence."

8. "In May 2010, New Hampshire's current Attorney General Michael Delaney issued a report faulting New Hampshire's Attorney General's office during Ayotte's tenure, the state Banking Department and the state Securities Bureau for failing to investigate complaints against Financial Resources Mortgage. Concurrently, a joint state legislative committee conducted an independent investigation and held public hearings. The Joint Legislative Committee to Review the State’s Regulatory Oversight Over Financial Resources Mortgage reached conclusions similar to those of Delaney's report, according to a draft report."

"Republican candidate for Governor John Stephen has criticized Ayotte for her lack of oversight of Financial Resources Mortgage's activities. Stephens has said that Ayotte "has to be held accountable" for her and the New Hampshire Department of Justice's failure to act on complaints received about Financial Resources Mortgage's conduct."

Oh my, John Stephen's throwing stones he's our guy that double counted what 40 million to bolster his budget to look good in voters eyes; however, he failed to pay providers see http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nh-supreme-court/1586662.html Chase Home for children vs. State of New Hampshire.

Yea, to Attorney Delaney but considering he is the head of the Department of Health and Human Services with evidence coming out soon about his Department's fraud not only in the cases his social workers work on; research shows that money taken from the Federal Government may result in even bigger balances than Ayotte has contributed to its continuing and it will fall back toStephens and Delaney check out the "Prevention Program under " RSA 169-C:39-a repealed by 2010, 195:3, effective on the date that the New Hampshire Children's Trust certifies to the secretary of state, the state treasurer, and the director of the office of legislative services that the trust has been formed as a private New Hampshire voluntary corporation and has been qualified by the Internal Revenue Service as a section 501(c)(3) entity.] Go all the through 39-i to get an handle on the layering involved and how the money is received and matched and where it funnels in and out of - that type of layering is indicative of ...oh... Money Laundering or the reality and definition it is the process of creating the appearance that large amounts of money obtained from a legitimate source  here the Federal Government is being used as it is suppose to; however, when in the same title     169-C:27 Liability of Expenses and Hearing on Liability (c)  parents are being charged 100% of the cost of all the services the Federal Government is reimbursing the State for at 75% without hearings one has to wonder where that money is going or when crossed reference with the State accounting department there are off shore accounts. Why? Oh and State legislators at hearing earlier this year decided if may be to much money to pay one of the top 4 accounting firms to mitigate the damages; this also occurred under Ayotte and continues under Delaney.

9. Back to Ayotte Deleted emails

Ayotte's office deleted Ayotte's email and calendar of appointments from their computer systems prior to Ayotte's resignation as New Hampshire Attorney General. Two days before Ayotte resigned her post as Attorney General and less than one week before Ayotte filed to run for the Senate Republican primary, Ayotte's office issued a policy memorandum covering deleted emails. The memorandum states that, "While courts have not yet addressed the issue, it is our view that electronic records that have been legally deleted and are available only on system back-up storage media are properly treated as no longer subject to disclosure" under New Hampshire's Right-to-Know Law.

On September 10, 2010, the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office released copies of many, but not all, of Ayotte's deleted emails in response to Right-to-Know requests. The Attorney General's Office also reported that many of Ayotte's "deleted" emails could not be recovered because backup tapes on which they had been stored had been re-used.

The legality of the permanent deletion of Ayotte's emails by New Hampshire's Attorney General's office is the subject of a law suit currently pending in New Hampshire's Merrimack County Superior Court.

On October 11, 2010, Paul Hodes, Democratic candidate for the Senate, accused Ayotte of using a capital murder case that Ayotte prosecuted in 2006 for political gain and for politicizing the case. Hodes based his accusation upon emails exchanged between Ayotte and Rob Varsalone, currently Ayotte's campaign strategist, during 2006. The emails were released to the public by the New Hampshire Department of Justice on September 10, 2010 under a Right-to-Know request. Subsequently, Hodes has suggested, based on Ayotte's released emails, that Ayotte's political ambitions may have in part motivated Ayotte's decision to seek the death penalty in the case.

I will just add more here as it comes up, whats that saying ...Self-conceit may lead to self-destruction. Certaining one to take a double look at when considering her as part of a presidential campaign; she may look and seem harmless due to her in ability to speak with conviction on the whole but she is not.

Concurrent Legislative & Judicial Power News » Vote for this!!

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120503/NEWS06/120509947  

The above article appeared in the unionleader 5/3/12; "quotes from article appear in italics"

"Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be." Sydney J. Harris

After heated debates and angry constituents brought numerous complaints to legislators about items ruled on in and similar to cases like this one http://openjurist.org/831/f2d/362/witte-v-justices-of-new-hampshire-superior-court where the supreme court ruled in its own favor; and the lack of regulatory rule-making applied across the board in all New Hampshire Courts, the courts appear to have finally backed down a bit and have offer a reasonable solution "concurrent Legislative and Judicial Powers" to "regulate court administrative and procedural matters by statute."

The statute/law unless it violated the U.S. or N.H. Constitution; should of course win because the Court's do NOT make laws in this country the legislators do. Pro Se litigants (meaning they represent themselves because for most people lawyers are to expensive) can hardly make sense of the rules in most of these courts, moreover, they are not consistent from court to court and that is NOT EQUAL ACCESS TO THE LAW.

VOTERS: The "1978 constitutional amendment giving the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court unilateral authority to make rules governing the administration of all state courts and the “practice and procedure” to be followed in the courts." Is not working, they are more often incomprehensible and I am now a law student; the average person is not getting a fair hearing; because, the Chief Justice has failed to discharge his/her duty faithfully ensuring that all courts are run the same and consistently; and these duties/complaints have extended past merely processing cases.

The extent that our Courts are corrupt can seen by the number of people complaining; the lack of accessibility for instance compare the NH site http://www.courts.state.nh.us/ to say GA's http://www.gwinnettcourts.com/home.asp#home/ , you can find cases more easily and obtain records in similar matter to better research just for starters in GA who of course has its own problems; but, it gives litigants specifically Pro Se litigants better resources to work with.  Furthermore, in 2004, "the Court blocked the Attorney General's Office from issuing a voters' guide explaining the constitutional question." Again, not providing the citizens with information to make a reasonable choice.

The separation-of-powers doctrine was designed to limit the 3 branches of the government; each branches has defined powers to "check" the powers of the other branches. This idea was simply called "separation of powers" designed to prevent abuses endured under the crown of England; Britain still does not have strict separation of powers.

In America, the public has a right to accountability over their legislators, courts and the executive branches of its government, their dealings and their accounting of how they receive and spend our money.

I can not agree with Justice Lynn's statement that the Judicial branch would not have a leader or it would in some way separate the court system; the court system is not "unified" now, because, as he stated "each level of court made its own rules" clearly relaying there is no leader except possibly over the interpretation of the laws made by legislators; but, even that can be questioned when parents are not receiving information that a fact finder is relying on in determining the fate of their child; a decision make by the Supreme Court in Ross vs. Gadwah, one that the lower courts more often than not fail to recognize. And that litigants can hardly afford to have their cases appealed or understand the rules; and lawyers can not expect consistency in filing or application of the law across the board, and not because its misinterpreted as above it is often overlooked or blatantly ignored.

The COMPROMISE “concurrent power” with the legislative branch to regulate court issues by statute" if it clarifies: "In the event of a conflict between a statute and a court rule, the statute, if not otherwise contrary to this constitution, shall prevail over the rule."  My fellow constituents “The majority practice around the country is in essence what the court has proposed,” and Justice Lynn concurs because the Justice department knows their reign of absolute control without oversight is over.

“There may have been misunderstanding historically” about the limits of judicial rule-making, said Hicks, “but it was before his time; here we should be very concerned, it is the judicial branch if not every branch that is suppose to understand the history behind how our laws developed in this country.

The U.S. constitution does obligated that the branches work together to balance each other out and avoid fraud; that's their job and the Judicial branch has finally had the conscience to do the right thing and represent the people, instead of their self-center control issues, as seen in thankfully retired Justice John Broderick and Justice Joseph Nadeau, who, of course oppose it.

Nixon's assertion that "Part 1 Article 35 of the constitution, being designed specifically to provide that the judges of the Supreme Court do not have to be and should not be unduly influenced by any outside forces, political, legislative or executive.” Is true only to the extent in the way the bill was originally introduced; the compromised bill proposal does not interfere with the Court's "decision" making power's; it in facts deals with "just" how they are run, when they are open, and consistent understandable and applicable rules across the board; something that if the Court and Legislators not all of whom are former Judges or Lawyers will be able to make plain so people can have equal access in obtaining justice from a Judicial System with only two-tiers and not three as in most other states.

To get this on the ballot in November, it has to pass the Senate by 3/5 majority so contact them now and tell them to pass it, as compromised!http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm  And in November be sure to read the wording carefully and repeal it if the compromise makes the ballot.

To hear other opinions from consitutents see: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S10 
"For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery." Jonathan Swift

U.S. Violence Against Women & Unadequate Immigration Policies that Hurt Women

I recently blogged about a propaganda piece written and meant to demean women; and discredited the source.  It was forwarded to me for no apparent reason the contents of which do not even scratch the tip of the iceberg; several other piece's of the puzzle are covered in this article by the Southern Poverty Law Center who better describes the issues women are facing in this Nation and the ones to aware of.

I do not hate men and advocate for family rights; I believe in stay at home moms and/or dads and moms who want to go to work, I dreamed of being just that myself, a stay at home mom; life has changes good and bad and I have faith that most men are more than decent and both men and women are victims of the court system; however, the violence of a great many father's rights groups has disturbing results covered here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women

Furthermore, women coming into this country need to be extra cautious; cases I worked on as an intern, introduced me to women from all over the world who met men abroad from the U.S. who courted them and made them feel loved; although, when they got here they were exposed to a very different life.  Many were brutalized - pregnancy's ending in miscarriages or finding out that the men they were with were felon's or criminal pedophiles; whose interest center on their children and bringing them over not for the reasons we would hope.

The immigration policies of this country require women coming here to be tested for vernal diseases; a background check for criminal activity and a series of interviews; however, what is not checked is the man, he is neither checked by immigration the U.S. Government nor by the women who fell in love with them; and for whom has no idea once here that she has rights and that those rights include NOT being abused.

This needs to change, women are coming here to be exposed to disease, and criminals because women here ask for blood tests or should, use condoms, and they at least google these guys names to be sure there are no adverse cases online about them.

Women coming from a different country or even a state to meet a man they met abroad, on vacation, or over the Internet - should do a background check before leaving, ask for STD tests, and get a criminal record check.  In many cases the men present one or all of these issues. Other cases show extreme abuse ranging from emotional, controlling and being passed around as a sex object.

Ladies, check these guys out before coming or going. Unfortunately, our government is not checking them out - as much as they are checking you out.

Nothing is more important than your own personal safety and that of your children, there are miserable creature's in this world and you have no chance of being free unless you stand up for yourself and make people accountable; otherwise you leave yourself open to injury.

Article directed at demeaning Women - Real Evidence or a Fraud

This link is a piece of propaganda directed at hating women; http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/turkat95.htm  it is so obviously biased and without sources for alleged documentation of case reference.

The behavior's listed are poor parenting styles to make a child choose one parent over another; and while this article centers only on women; both men and women have demonstrated such behaviors; the validity of articles such as this has to be dismissed in whole; because, of the blatant prejudice; more so when you check the resources, because it is Fraudulent in every respect.

The article has numerous red flags;
The writer id's himself as Ira Daniel Turkat Ph.D. with the Florida Institute of psychology Results: there is none; He also states he is with the University of Florida College of Medicine Results: a call to Dean's office of this facility indicates HE IS NOT; http://www.med.ufl.edu/about/contact.shtml  (352) 273-7500

The only hospital in Venice, Florida does not have a psychology department for this actor to be Chief of http://www.veniceregional.com/Physicians/PhysicianList.aspx as indicated on this website http://www.childcustodycoach.com/pas.html

There is a doctor of psychology listed on the Florida Licensing Boards site http://ww2.doh.state.fl.us/irm00praes/prasindi.asp?LicId=1826&ProfNBR=2701&Lookup=TRUE and that is where the relationship ends; the numbers listed for a venice office are never answered and calls are not returned.  However, the Dr. licensed by the State of Florida with the same name practices in Sarasota.  This document gives an address of 1225 Avenida Del Circo, Venice, Florida 34285 none of which connects to the doctor listed as the contributor to the document;  

The Internet is a great tool for research but TRUST NO ONE - Check your/their sources - Father's rights groups pushing this propaganda, unchecked are dangerous predators. Work in Family Rights requires the whole family - everyone has their role and when one parent has stayed home with children they should be allowed to continue to not disrupt the Child; male or female. The manipulation in and around this article is useless.

Circulated to my attention by A "Joseph Kenick III" JKenick@MyFairPoint.net  a person who alledges the Court's were unfair to him; no idea what his evidence is but I do hope that people airing his take on it; at least ask for documentation to support it.
Like Evo Morales once said "I don't debate with liars."

 

Reporter Kathy Burn's & Concord Monitor's Lack of Professional Ethic's in Reporting

This article is a perfect example of media sources and reporters that are bringing the art of accurate and responsible reporting to a disgraceful decline; unless of course you want a narrow minded and personal bias as your basis for news.

In this example, the only Child running amok is the Reporter Kathy Burns and her reporting style if one can be found; it is indicative of bitterness, bias and unprofessionalism everything that media ethics purports not to do.

NH State Representative's both Republican and Democrat get paid $200.00 a year to serve their constituents; the Senate a mere $100; that they can actually be passionate about the work they do and show emotion when their efforts are thwarted  should be applauded for simply trying; whether we always agree or not these displays of dismay should not be made into something that it is not. The legislative process is effective but has never historically been a quick fix in this Country; some perfect examples are the U.S. Constitution's creation and ratification and then acceptance and implementation of amendments it is constantly evolving;

Most compelling is the 13th Amendment that was suppose to abolish slavery it was submitted on January 11, 1864, by Senator John B. Henderson of Missouri, Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865; however, slavery and all the rights that go with it was not accomplished or enforced by force of law, until a series of Supreme Court decisions starting with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954; 90 years, however, acceptance is still growing; Jim Crow laws in various States making segregation legal until well into the 1970's; Racial segregation can still be seen in American neighborhoods; through poor public policies, mortgage discrimination and redlining by Realtors and banks refusing to finance minorities among other things. If you don't think people like Senator Henderson have the right to have been dismayed or in fact outraged at the out come of the amendment being passed and the resulting lack of application, because the Judicial Branch did not enforce the Laws made by the Legislative Branch your wrong.

In this story the reporter failed to report the truth; the legislation, the displays  of emotion are related to matters of moral issues that the majority deplore partial birth abortions etc. As far as Speaker O'Brien and the redress members go; they are out to show the injustices that occur in our court systems and the unethical treatment people are receiving across this state with various Government and State Departments. 

These people are not all legal professionals and have a variety of backgrounds and when they check information and hear directly from constituents who live in their state and city's and move to get more information in seeking the truth;  That is what should be applauded and when they act on information without fully checking their primary sources and corresponding documentation we should find fault with that.

But, we absolutely should never find fault with displays of emotion, its emotional, its our future and its their time away from their families and full time jobs for a mere $200 dollars a year to speak up!

Let this reporter and paper know we are not interested in her type of reporting or her personal bias.

I try to report it as I see it, and only post after a full review of the how, what, when, and why; I then cross check and recheck my sources; I accept critiques and I do not delete the ones I do not like, as the Concord Monitor does; every writer has a bias or slant and a duty to provide ethical reports to you; by, presenting you with the facts and letting you form your opinion's; not shoving theirs down your throat.

This is the article in question: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/326540/children-running-amok

A WIN on the War Against the Abuse of Power and Human Rights

A message of hope to start the week:

Former Liberian president Charles Taylor is finally being brought to justice; the quotes in italic's are taken from Dumisani Muleya's article found in full here: http://allafrica.com/stories/201204280152.html

This article covers the why behind the lesson's to be herald in the age of the world wide Internet full of Communication; it is this, the abuse of power and human rights is unacceptable and we the people of this world are not going to tolerate oppression under any disguise to our world neighbors or at home.  The time for Child Protection Services and Governments  "The world over, leaders often abuse office with reckless abandon, forgetting one day they would be held to account in a court of law or court of public opinion."

This ruling should give the repressed hope because it  "....sends an important message to high-ranking state officials; no matter who you are or what position you hold, one day you will be brought to justice for your crimes."

"...the arrogant lack of remorse and failure to embrace truth and reconciliation by the brutal perpetrators beyond their choreographed phoney remarks and insulting gestures."   Will be brought forward, toleration of oppression is not long lasting.

"the Taylor verdict shows, those in power NOT JUST  in Zimbabwe must not think they are untouchable because the day of reckoning will come, maybe sooner rather than later."

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."    Thomas Jefferson

To: Dumisani Muleya's thank you for your well reasoned and compelling message to world leaders in your coverage of the long anticipated justice coming to the victims in Zimbabwe. dmvc

State Gives Limited Time for Recovery to NH Homeowners for Tax Relief DP-8

"If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists - to protect them and to promote their common welfare - all else is lost." BARACK OBAMA, speech, Aug. 28, 2006

Low and Moderate Households - Applications are ONLY being accepted from May 01, 2012 through June 30, 2012; unless you apply during that time you will not be entitled to a refund from the State.

Go to the Department of Revenue Administration: http://www.revenue.nh.gov/forms/low_mod_program.htm the form you want to fill out is DP-8 http://www.revenue.nh.gov/forms/documents/DP-8_SF1.pdf

Follow the instructions provided, keep hitting tab to get to the next box to fill in; it is set up to compute the entire application for you; it is only 3 pages long and 4 pages of instructions most of which will be computed for you as you go through the form.  Attach your 2011 federal income tax returns and the final 2011 property tax bill; this must be POSTMARKED NO EARLIER THAN 5/1/2012 and NO LATER THAN 6/30/12 for this refund.

Nothing to lose fill it out it might be enough for a fun activity; if you don't its very unclear what the government will use it for.  Next year google DP-8 around the same time of year.  The NH Government does not widely disperse information and does not automatically refund.

Sean's Story - A Father's Love

This is a story that would befit Plato's teachings "Let parents bequeath to their children not riches, but the spirit of reverence."

A parent divided from their Child, by another parent is intentional interference the parent child relationship and bond - parental alienation and its wrong; this father and son story shows that a parent's love for their child is finally fulfilled after 5 years of numerous trials and tribulations and it covers the Child's adjustments dealing with separation anxiety, and overcoming attachment disorders through therapy and love.  All understandably not an easy road, it is a road that a child and parent continue to build on in their lives together, always looking over their shoulder but, through it all helping other families bring their children home http://bringseanhome.org/.

A child who doesn't know why his father is not in his life, taken to another country and told someone else was his father. Whenever, he asked questions about his real Dad he was denied the real answers, and suppressed his longing to know so he wouldn't be disappointed never knowing his real father was doing everything possible to be in his life. 

This Dateline Story is filled with international suspense, adjustment, a parents determination to never stop fighting for their child and the child's view that it should have never taken as long as it did. Hear the full story by Dateline here
Check out this great MSN video: Preview: 'Sean's Story'

Happiness is in the simple act of children and parent's sharing time together.

In America, parental alienation is an ongoing epidemic directed at both mother's and father's and the courts do not always know what to do or instead hope the situation will correct itself; however, by not enforcing their own orders for visitation or responsibility with sanctions; the courts are hardly making a difference in the best of the child.  This case is a perfect example of what should be done to help children reunite with the estrange parent and work towards keeping a relationship with the alienating parent, it in facts chastises and corrects lower court decisions not promoting the influence of both parents in their children's lives.

Another Child's story is about how a Child should not be lead to feel that unsupervised visits with his mother will fail before they have even started, without a period to adjust McIntosh and McIntosh 226-2000-DM-00927. The father’s behaviors as contained in the court record and in GAL’s report are contrary to the findings in Miller v. Todd (March 31, 2011) where the NH Supreme Court raised the question of and sited the following:

"... whether Todd (like the Father, in the above Matter) has benefited from (his) misbehavior. In Begins v. Begins, 721 A.2d 469, 470-71 (Vt. 1998), the Children’s relationship with their Mother deteriorated following the parents’ separation due to the fact that the Father unfairly blamed her for … problems and made disparaging remarks about her … The trial court concluded that the boys’ hostility toward their Mother, encouraged and fueled by their Father, precluded an award of custody to Mother. Id. at 471. Although the court found that Father did not “deserve to win custody,” it concluded that it had no choice but to award custody to him. Id. (quotations omitted). The Vermont Supreme Court rejected such reasoning. Id. at 472. As the court stated: Although obviously well intended, the court’s decision effectively condoned a parent’s willful alienation of a Child from the other parent. Its ruling sends the unacceptable message that others might, with impunity, engage in similar misconduct. Left undisturbed, the court’s decision would nullify the principle that the best interests of the Child are furthered through a healthy and loving relationship with both parents. Id.; see Mack-Manley, 138 P.3d at 528 (trial court found Children’s best interests not served by ignoring … unsubstantiated Child abuse and neglect allegations); Young, 628 N.Y.S.2d at 963 (trial court’s decision noticeably silent as to … false allegations and it was clear the court failed to consider evidence that …. willfully interfered with a parent’s relationship with the Children)… Vacated and remanded. DALIANIS, C.J., and DUGGAN and CONBOY, JJ., concurred. "

Miller Vs. Todd Full Text here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByTPLCn0VjpSSUZRa3lwRVFOeUU

Without preserving the parent/child relationship wherever possible the threat to the child's best interests is best highlighted as assessed by Oscar Wilde "Children begin by loving their parents: after a time they judge them; rarely, if ever, do they forgive them."

THE DETAILS ON THE CPS "LIST" IS OUT

WHAT THE U. S.GOVERNMENT, CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DOES AND CAN DUE TO PARENT/FAMILIES

AT ANYTIME

This piece refers to case in the New Hampshire Ct. System where parents were charged for alleged services by the State and/or contacted by Child Protection Workers
We all have heard about the "Client List" where "Johns" who hired prostitutes made the list; justice yes, however, when a unfounded case or case against a parent gets expunged it makes the results of being on this list devastating and they get to pay for it in more ways than one:

       The Plaintiff, (herein Pl.) brings forward new information directly or indirectly related to this matter and disputes the reasoning in the Court’s (herein Ct.) Orders on a Writ of Certiorari to the extent that the pleadings, applicable law and ambiguity contained in the District Ct. Orders remains unresolved as follows:   (abbreviations are standard bluebook abbreviations used in law: Mot. is Motion)

 The questions manifest themselves as follows: 

a.       Are parents entitled to a fair and accurate account of what they are being billed for, including what was paid by each parent, federal grants and other TANF/ Federal Title IV funding that were reimbursed to the State at 75%; no matter how lack lustrous a States Service plan may be?

b.      Does the RECORD support the State pushing an Assented to Mot. for Reimbursement against the Pl. when no past Order clearly defined their right to do so?  

c.       Did the State attach the Pl. [’s] pay without a proper Ct. Order justifying his actions? And/or was the attachment by the State precluded at the time, because the Pl. appealed and an Order from the District Ct. clearly bars the 1/7/2011 by the State? 

d.      If the State had the ability to attach the Pl. [’s] pay in 2011, with the Order signed in 2009; why is it the Pl. [’s] fault and why is she being held in contempt of a Ct. Order when it was the State who failed to follow the Order to attach her pay in 2009; really, shouldn’t they be held in contempt?  

e.       Did the State apply the incorrect number of weeks for recovery in the Assented to Mot. and the resulting attachment of her pay? 

These are the Pl. [’s] unanswered questions on appeal/Writ of Certiorari and due an answer by virtue of the full review alleged to have been conducted of the District Ct. file; 

The Order of this Ct. articulates how an individual may be responsible for payments to the state in a clear and coherent manner; albeit it fails to address the facts, the ambiguous Orders of the lower Ct., and the unanswered questions it left behind, identified above; 

1.      ¶ 1. a., a full accounting has not been disclosed; a handful of unsupported documents, that a professional accountant cannot decipher is not a disclosure; records submitted to the Ct. by the Child Support Division show the attachment as NOT paid to the State; but, to the Father for unknown reasons, relevant in this matter; a TANF payment was receive as some payment when neither party was illegible for it at the time; all amounting to a denial of due process and/or fraud; 

2.      ¶ 1. b.  The Assented to agreement was signed because the Pl. was advised by the State that an Order for reimbursement existed in the District Ct. RECORD, undisputed by the State; albeit a review shows no clear Order for reimbursement to the state exist in the RECORD, as a result, the Assented to Mot. is a product of Fraud in the procurement by the State; “The average parent would be at a loss when faced with problems of procedure, evidence, or cross- examination." Danforth v. State Dep 't of Health and Welfare, 303 A.2d 794, 799 (Me. 1973); whether or not it was appropriately pleaded by the pro se litigant, the Pl., clearly signed without knowledge of the illegalities’ contained within, or notification of her rights; Furthermore, State Employee Reimbursement Department as an Officer of the Ct. had no immunity, “…when violating a Constitutional right, … for they are deemed to know the law" Owens v. Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398, 455 US 622;  

3.      ¶ 1. c. Disregard, or over looked due to the ambiguous Orders of the District Ct. is the fact that the State filed an untimely Mot. to attach the Pl. [’s] pay and was denied the right to attached on12/20/10 by Judge Leary Ex. B; also, part of the District Ct. file under “review”; the District Ct. indirectly recognized the Pl. [’s] De Novo Appeal in Ex. B part 2; denied and recognized as a Writ of Certiorari here, highlighting the State failure to comply with Ct. Orders; 

4.      To the extent that any arrearages were/are or may be deemed payable as Ordered in the District Ct. record; the Pl. is indigent/ hardly able to pay current fee’s deducted from her weekly pay checks since 1/7/11; ¶ 5 indicates that alleged arrears should be considered satisfied since an attachment should only have occurred after appeal/review;   

5.      ¶ 1. d. It is inconceivable that the Pl. should be held in contempt for non-payment when the Assented to Order of 2009 was the ordered used by the State in 2011 to force an attachment of  her pay; hardly, the Pl. [’s] fault that the State’s lack of accountability and/or due to incompetence lead to their neglect in attaching her pay in 2009 as Order by the Ct.;  

6.      ¶ 1. e. If the Assented to Mot. is enforced as Ordered, by virtue of the Ct. [’s] definition of a Writ of Certiorari, a “full review of the record” would have to give weight to the District Ct. Order of 11/18/2010 Ex. A.  where the Judge indisputably recognized the Pl. [’s] objection and went so far as to state: “Ms. XYZ is correct that the State’s right to recovery is limited under NH RSA 169-C:27 I (c)”; recognizing the Pl. [’s] position  that the computed amount of weeks by the State of  “627” was erroneous and inconsistent with the law under NH RSA 169-C:27 I (c); “Courts are not bound by an officers interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act” Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla. 32, 227 F. 417; The failure of the District Ct. to cure the defect it recognized opposes the standard that “Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972)”;   
     

If the Pl. was advised of her rights at the start or any stage in this matter, by the State, presumed to know the laws under which they act; it is highly unlikely that the Pl. would have signed a document doubling what would be lawfully recoverable, without coercion through the State.   

      Due to the ambiguity of the law in of itself the timing for recovery is not specific; to allow for  the absolute maximum recovery period it is computed as follows at $6.50 a week; 5 months x 4.33 in 2005 = 21.65 weeks; 12 months in 2006 = 52. Weeks; 11 months in 2007  = 47.63 weeks; + 4 years per Statute = 208 weeks for a Total of 329.28 weeks as the maximum recovery period. 

      The Assented to Mot. was utterly false; the average person, would have confidence in the State’s ability to be factual and would NOT have agreed to pay double what was allowable by law; even if an appropriate Order existed for payment; a reasonable person may have agreed to the 329 week maximum with the existence of a Order supporting it; but, it is more than likely a person of limited means would have evoked their right to a hearing if they felt the assessment of the ability to pay was beyond their means; the standard of assessment, has never been disclosed;  “A prosecutor doesn't have absolute immunity if he fabricates evidence during a preliminary investigation, before he could properly claim to be acting as an advocate, see Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 275 (1993), or makes false statements in a sworn affidavit in support of an application for an arrest warrant, see Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129-30 (1997). Furthermore, as prosecutors and others investigating criminal matters have no absolute immunity for their investigatory conduct, a fortiori, social workers conducting investigations have no such immunity. See id. at 126.”  

7.      If the State‘s Assented to Order is enforced; an Order from this Ct. needs to clearly state and correct that the $ a week is for a period not to exceed “329” weeks from the date of 1/7/11 as reasoned in ¶ 6. to settle the inappropriate attachment by the State with the Pl. [’s] employer; taking $ a week, including a weekly administrative surcharge of $ for a period of 627 weeks, commenced on 1/7/11;

8.      It should further be reiterated that the State’s incompetence and denial of due process, in informing the Pl. of her rights in this matter extends beyond the proceedings leading to financial liability; including but not limited to her name being added to the central registry under NH RSA 169-C:35 V.  And the possibility to expunge under NH RSA 169-C:35 IV as early as 2006; the proceeding to expunge the RECORD was done only when the Pl. [’s] pursued a legal education, to enabled her  to identify her rights and pursue a Pet. to Expunge granted on 1/15/10, Ex. C;  

The Plaintiff in this matter was not advised of her rights as required her 5^th 6^th and 14^th amendment rights. And NH RSA 169-C:34 Duties of the Department of Health and Human Services. – VI. At the first contact in person, any person investigating a report of abuse or neglect on behalf of the department shall verbally inform the parents of a child suspected of being a victim of abuse or neglect of the specific nature of the charges and that they are under no obligation to allow a social worker or state employee on their premises or surrender their children to interviews unless that social worker or state employee is in possession of a court order to that effect. Upon receiving such information, the parent shall sign a written acknowledgement indicating that the information required under this paragraph was provided by the person conducting the investigation. The parent and department shall each retain a copy of the acknowledgment.  

9.      As a result, this Ct. is put on Notice that the relevance of ¶ 8.  in this matter, is due to the fact that the State’s reckless incompetence and/or malicious intent affects the Pl. [’s] ability to pay; on or about 3/29/12, a source (ps.S. Thank You) disclosed that the State had obstructed her ability to gain employment in her field of 20 years, by keeping her name on the Central Registry after the Petition was granted on 1/15/10 Ex. C; The Pl. sought proof by mailing a Central Registry Name Search, on 3/29/12 Ex. D; as of the date of this Mot. it remains unanswered in “writing by DHHS”; Nonetheless, the Pl. pursued the matter further by calling the Central Registry @ 603-271-4455 on 4/19/12 @ 2:10 PM and was informed that the State had not removed her name from the Central Registry; precluding her from employment in field for the period of 2006 through 2012 and causing public embarrassment for positions that had been applied to, that required a Central Registry Release after the Expunge Pet. of 2010 and of course was denied; and will continue to be denied employment in her field until such a time as her name is removed in writing from the Central Registry; as such they are liable for defamation of character and the decrease in her salary due to being removed from the industry she was trained to work in without merit; solely due to the State’s malicious act of incompetence and/or willfully and knowingly failing to follow and/or implement standard procedures to remove her name from the Central registry after it had been expunged by a Ct. of competent jurisdiction;

Here it should be noted that the call showed that any parent merely looked into by the State may be on that Central Registry; call to be sure; it is only suppose to be for those found guilty of Abuse and/or Neglect and it can be expunged one year after your told you made the list, oh, oophs that’s only if your social worker is actually competent, and informed you in writing you made the list;

Th The Phone Call:

Moreover, the incompetence of this office is seen in the call itself; Pl. hello, I am calling to see if you received my name search request? Name, yes, was it mailed? Pl. Yes.  Yes, but No, oh hold on, I only send out the ones that are not on the list this is on my supervisor’s desk can I transfer for you? Pl. yes, please and her name XYZ, ok. Again repeat of above and previous party said you had it, when will it be mailed out indicating the name is still on the registry? They said really, well we are busy we get over 150 calls a day, I had someone out a couple of weeks ago, next call there are only two people part time; Pl. how long does it typically take for a response? A week really, Pl. well it was sent to you 3 weeks ago.  Well, I was out, you get the picture  two calls involved over a 5 day period resulting in the same person relaying the above and following contradictions: I have been here for 12 years, I have been here only 2 or 3 years,;we had problems with the computer system, we have all new people; they hardly ever have someone that gets the decision turn over, the district court offices don’t follow procedures to have people removed, they add people who shouldn’t be added, people added should get notice; we destroy files once they are entered, we probably have it in the file; Pl. can you send in your orders to prove you shouldn’t be on the list? No. the district office and court have to file the standard procedure and do it; Pl. what?! really ??? Are you kidding me? Can you send me what they should have done so I can get it corrected? I guess but I can't locate it right now we're busy.Ah, ok so the Pl. should just continue to have their life on hold, I guess. and then Well you could send me a copy of the order and I can locate it in the file; last week the file was destroyed after entry into the computer systems now it exists and remove you, if its in the file. The file she didn't keep?? But could you send me the release again we don’t have it. Pl. What? Last Thursday you said you had it. Well, it could be in the file to go out.  Pl. what do you have to do to get it corrected a Civil Suit? Well you could let the district office know. Pl. In case they are obviously not on board with the rules; are the procedures on line? Oh no it’s interoffice; and I was out last week; Pl. can you email them to me so I can go to the court to get it corrected? Well I’ll try they must be around here somewhere …. Can you send your release again, I don't think we got it. Sure how about by email the first one was wrong so the Pl. had her stay on the phone until both parties were sure it went through, even though they clearly had it the week before. And then she said oh, I can't tell you on the phone if your on the list. Pl. What?You already did!  Send me it all in writing by email. Oh we can't send privileged information by email. Pl. Send it USPS, but I want it.
The Kicker
Well you'll be off in 7 years; Pl. hmm you didn't know who I was last week.  The Problem with this will be covered seperately look for The List NH RSA 169:C:35...

Results after each call;

  with a Government Department under the branch of Health

and Human Services because it’s all 

                              Yup, Confidential - Top Secret…

10.      The financial issues before the Ct. are of broad public interest due to the interests in the funding of Federal and State monies involved; the State cannot hide behind the confidentiality act for these issues, due to that little thing we have called the Freedom of Information Act; we pay taxes and so on so knowing how are taxes are spent both in state and federal, how the funds are dispersed and spent, the Pl. acknowledges the Confidentiality of the Central Registry piece; but it doesn’t really appear that the rest is confidential………unless of course you say so ,which you will, because that’s what your told to do not necessarily law but whatever……there are ways around that too; it's called Freedom of expression Free Speech whether or not its in the Court records I suspect I have kept the pieces like which court, which Judge is sitting on this, the DHHS workers and such names out but the facts as stated as they are, are what they are.

WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests a Honorable Court Order something reasonable and uncomplicated because this isn’t really isn't that complicated:  

A.    Order the State to distribute to every Judge and DHHS Attorney the proper procedures to follow when removal from the Central Registry is a result of an appropriate ruling; further consider the need of an audit to ensure there are no other victims and correct people wrongly included;

B.     Dismiss the Civil Contempt due to the numerous errors acted out by the State;

C.     Make a clear cut Order that indicates the Pl. is responsible for $ a week for a period not to exceed 329 weeks, from the original date of attachment;

D.    Dismiss the Order to reimburse the DHHS Reimbursement Unit;

E.     Order a hearing on the merits;

F.      Grant such other relief as the court deems just and equitable.         

CERTIFICATION:  I hereby certify that a copy of the above Mot. has been mailed to an assistant Attorney General for the State Reimbursement Unit, et al., on this   ^th day of April.  This of course is not meant as legal advice in any way just commenting on the obvious; be forewarned the snarky → meaning the not quite as snide as I would like remarks are my own and were not included in the pleading that this may or may not refer to or that may or may not really exist. The Information and Facts are real unfortunately.

For Parents who have ever had contact with DCYF check here:

NHDCYF Central Registry

129 Pleasant Street                        http://nfpcar.org/eBook/Off.htm   getting off the
Concord, NH 03301                             registry for parents – National Foster Parent Coalition for   Phone: (603) 271-4455                        Allegation Reform

Fax: (603) 271-4729

NH Central Registry Name Check form to sign get notarized and send certified to be sure they can't say they don't have it http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/hr/documents/registry.pdf which they will because they probably won't and/or they lost it.

THE ULTIMATE BLUNDER

Psychologists, Courts, Child protection workers, Guardians

Aristotle once said: All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsions, habit, reason, passion, desire. 

Understanding the individual is in recognizing every soul has a purpose, a reason for being, finding the nerve to recognize and act on the obstacles in your path, doesn't require a psychologist, it requires finding one person and it only takes one who believes in you; who pushes you to take chances; “Everyone’s a prisoner until they ask questions and find the answers.” "Socrates"

Finding the answers your looking for in a person that has the same causes for existence as you do? Psychology/Psychiatry is the only medical profession that allows their members to treat ailments that their very boards do not recognize and provide drugs to treat these ailments, be very wary of the drugs it offers your children.    

Fraud, oh I mean, Freud once said "Analysis does not set out to make pathological reactions impossible, but to give the patients ego freedom to decide one way or another.

Meaning all psychologist's react and act within a realm of undefined measures against what is reality as their ego dictates; where analysis does not make pathological reactions "impossible"; analysis by the Psychologist/Psychiatrist "does make reactions pathological" - because Freud also once said "Every normal person, in fact, is only normal on the average. His ego approximates to that of the psychotic in some part or other and to a greater or lesser extent."

That being said or analyzed; whenever a social worker pushes a Court to get a psychological assessment on any one to submit to a court, be prepared because, the father of modern psychology Freud said "every" normal person, even the most rounded upstanding citizen is psychotic in some part or other that would include; the person testing, the social worker, and the Judge, ALL of whom will have a number of "pathology's"; because not to have them would in fact be deemed abnormal; the problem comes in when a social worker and/or a Judge tries to interpret test results behind closed doors - an area where only gray can exist, that becomes twisted and obscene upon the observer, over the dissection, because the Father of modern psychology says so.

What the courts do not ascertain and cross exam is that All human actions have one or more causes and they do not bother to acknowledge which one it was chance, nature, compulsions, habit, reason, passion, desire? What triggered it? What feeds into the formula in a forum that accepts heresay without factual evidence?  How do you determine the fitness of parent, when a report done by some person who has viewed/interviewed the person for a few short hours against a standardized test with results tested and formulated around inmates; really the average person may have run into a chance exception, or wasn't truly in their nature, a compulsion caused by trauma, a habit, inability to reason at precise moment, driven by blinded passion or desire, lack of education, and then for what purpose what is the why? Perhaps it was for none of the above because not enough question's were asked on ALL sides; what if it never existed - they are innocent and in a state of turmoil due to separation from their child is that exam still valid?  What if a Child is separated from their parent should their outward behavior be ruled as unacceptable and should they be drugged to prevent them from asking about their parents, family, siblings and friends? That would be expecting and accepting the improbability that the child's behavior doesn't stem from grief, depression, anguish and loss.

Now what about that truly evil person who should not be a parent - the one who knows how to take the standardized test and it shows that their nature, compulsion, habit, ability to reason, passions and/or desires, as well as their education does NOT support the findings and real facts we all come to associate with the American Justice system; because they are completely disregarded by the Judge? What if the child shows no sign of friends ever visiting that parents home, that they are not allowed to talk about what goes on in that home, that they are unable to call friends or meet with them outside of school? Is that not a sign of a bigger issue? What if they are told that they can't not participate in sports or other events because they have to see the other parent? Is that not a form of control?

Behind closed doors the truth is buried and when they realize their mistake it gets buried deeper until they Child protection workers like the vulture/abusive parent start to believe their own fabrications.

The fact is everyday in the United States and other countries children are taken away from their parents or not being kept safe because a standardized test, that the testers, Child protection workers and the Judge who ordered them would show at least multiple pathology's on or be deemed abnormal if they took it - is being used and reasoned as a tool to say they will do harm in the future; or sadly to ignore the facts the real undisputed facts and say a child and eyewitness's are lying. Or that the child's disclosure against the innocent parent while living with the abusive parent is true without any facts to support it; unless they obtain the real facts found in therapists records never checked that show the child never said any of the things relayed to the Court, because the therapist started to believe one parent or favor one parent over another and disregarded their daily notes that documented what the child really said. Notes that the Courts and DCYF workers seek to surpress.

Oscar Wilder once said: "In all matter's of opinion, our adversaries are insane"

Children's worst adversaries are the Child Protection Service Worker, uneducated Guardian's acting on their behalf and Judges ALL purporting to be acting for the greater good; when children become wards of the State their Warden is the State as their guardian, subjecting them to unspeakable conscience shocking realities, being drugged, put in homes with no where to go when they turn 18, without resources, without direction and all because up to the age of 18, the State received Federal Funding up to 75% to employ the CPSW, GAL and Judge who took them away from their natural families and it needs to be stopped; because the child who needed help is not getting it and living in waste.

“We must always think about things, and we must think about things as they are, not as they are said to be.” George Bernard Shaw

Looking at things as they are, if the government practice is right and just for these children why do we need laws to reinstate parental rights? http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/22/title22sec4059.html 

Push your legislators to adopt open courts for accountability and laws such as Maine's to correct the injustices that are occurring around the United States and your very neighborhood now. http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml 

For more information see the Citizens Commission on Human Rights report http://www.cchr.org/ it is not good.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. C. S. Lewis

Verdicts Sweeping the U.S. oppossing Oppression momentum opens Court Rooms

"At a time when we're having to take such difficult decisions about how to cut back without damaging the things that matter the most, we should strain every sinew to cut error, waste and fraud." (David Cameron)

Notable Lawsuits against the Department of Health and Human Services Departments and that of Child Protection Workers range from 1.2 million to 30 million per case; yet the government in each State is still not getting the message to correct their error, waste and fraud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protective_Services  Notable lawsuits http://newsok.com/okfuskee-county-jury-returns-4.55-million-verdict-after-counselor-failed-to-report-admitted-abuse-by-mother/article/3657723#ixzz1rPvy7nHm  Future Cases on what a Jury will give a Fit Mother deprived of Custody because the Child's Counselor and Father Lied and other cases where CPS workers said they thought there would be harm in the future; or misled Courts to deny grandparents rights and get a personal bonus or feed their over inflated deprived egos; will hopefully ensure open Court Rooms in New Hampshire in the Future.

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=G039045&s=CA&d=45035 Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick v. County of Orange this case went for appeal by State and was denied; 4.9 million dollar verdict stands - These and other cases are leading to some but not ALL States Opening their Court Rooms to ensure accountability:

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/01/12/2026293/judges-say-kentucky-juvenile-courts.html
http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/view/198/242/
Pennsylvania
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/11/stop_child_abuse_secret_courts.php California
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/greenhut/greenhut-judge-right-to-promote-court-openness/article_59f47952-b8f3-5b80-98c7-9a51ee8fc407.html#ixzz1mDm5LIRI  A Judges input on the corruption and mismanagement of the Child Protective Services as A government Agency. 

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011FogartyHardwick/04CertDenied/prweb5261414.htm http://freethechildrencoalition.webs.com/precedentcases.htm http://www.ctkidslink.org/publications/welf04confstatute11.pdf-12  12 other States

Sadly, the  RULES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE -- FAMILY DIVISION SECTION 4 -- ABUSE AND NEGLECT 4.1 Scope:

The family division has jurisdiction in RSA 169-C Child Protection Act cases.

4.2 Attendance of Non-Parties: Any party wishing to bring other persons to hearings held in RSA 169-C cases shall first obtain permission of the Court, either by written motion in advance of the hearing, or upon oral motion at the beginning of the hearing. Such other persons will not be allowed into the hearing until the Court approves the request. Such persons shall not be entitled to participate but may do so with the permission of the Court. See RSA 169-C:14.

4.3 Open Hearings Pilot Project: Other than in those counties in which the legislature has adopted a presumption of open hearings, hearings under RSA 169-C are closed to the public. In those counties in which hearings under this chapter are presumed open, parties to the action must inform the court in writing before any hearing, or orally and on the record at the beginning of any hearing, if they believe the hearing should be closed to the public, in full or in part. See Chapter Law 134 (2006) pertaining to open hearings in Grafton, Rockingham and Sullivan Counties.

This N.H. Rule above, is in conflict with the Law under NH RSA 169-C:14 Hearings Not Open to the Public. Shows that the Court's remain closed because the division of Child Protection is the one who informs the Court in writing and/or orally they believe the hearing should be closed to the public and the Judicial System so orders that is, which means the law is frivolous and without merit.

If Legislators simply changed the above referenced law to replace "NOT" WITH "ARE" open, it would reasonably cure the issue. This recent article http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120417/NEWS06/704179937/-1/news06  sums up Attorney General Delaney of New Hampshire's attitude toward Families and was best stated by House Speaker O'Brien in reference to Delaney he is “more interested in playing politics than administering justice.”

"For the most part fraud in the end secures for its companions repentance and shame." (Charles Simmons) However, it never adequately compensates the victims in these cases; how do you possibly compensate a parent who due to fraud has lost countless moments in their child lives? Including but not limited to their first day in a new school, the first point in a game, their every day discovery's and growth, being first on the scene to soothe a bruised knee or mean comment, to share in their everyday moments of growth and discovery's working to ensure their happiness as a child. "This" is not replaceable, any parent who doesn't realize all of these moments in their child's life good and bad is a deprived fool.

"A clear and innocent conscience fears nothing." Elizabeth I