Friday, September 30, 2011

Cheshire County Superior Court Bailiff - Bob Tebo – Caught on Video Making a Criminal Threat when he Threatens to Break a Citizens Personal Property

State of New Hampshire Employee – Robert Tebo – A Bailiff at the Cheshire County Courthouse - Speaking with Citizen #1, suddenly realizes that Citizen #2 is video recording.

He approaches Citizen #2 and puts his hand onto the lens of Citizens #2’s camera, blocking video with his hand as the audio is still recording.

Tebo – Hey, he’s got the camera on, I don’t want that on

Citizen #2 – Hey, don’t touch my equipment

Tebo – I’ll touch it,

Tebo - I’ll break it

Citizen #2 – Thanks for saying that on video

Tebo – That’s OK

Citizen #2 – You’ll break equipment?

Citizen #2 – Can you talk to me more about your desire to break people’s equipment, Do you think that’s part of your responsibilities here?

Tebo, disappears out of view of the camera

One of the last video’s shot in the Cheshire County Superior Court, before Arnold’s August 8th order banning all such equipment from the Courthouses in Keene.

 

One reason cited by Arnold for his wanting a ban on all media was his allegation of an out of control public creating an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation within the halls of his justice.

With all due respect, these video’s show a very different picture, one of the Courts Officer’s creating a hostile environment that clearly is using intimidation as a means of control.

If these public servants have so much fear and anxiety at the sight of a camera, a piece of equipment that does nothing more than records their actions and shares their thoughts when they speak, maybe it’s time they are ALL RETIRED. Maybe the whole lot needs to be sent to therapy so they can learn how to deal with their issues and we can be assured they can perform their duties in an appropriate manner as required by the law.

Normally people don’t have the extreme reactions as those exhibited by members of the Keene area Courts. The highly concentrated number of Court Officer’s having such extreme reactions to camera’s, an aversion to camera's so severe that threatening to break them comes so easily, shows an anomaly in the thought process that needs professional intervention.

In what is an undeniable, despicable act of aggression and a crime in the State of NH the Law that Tebo Broke: 

CHAPTER 631
ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 631:4
631:4 Criminal Threatening. –
I. A person is guilty of criminal threatening when:
(c) The person threatens to commit any crime against the property of another with a purpose to coerce or terrorize any person; or
II. (b) All other criminal threatening is a misdemeanor.
III. (a) As used in this section, "property'' has the same meaning as “property of another''
(b) As used in this section, "terrorize'' means to cause alarm, fright, or dread; the state of mind induced

Tebo, sheds light by way of another example of the real reasons behind the Camera Ban in Cheshire County NH Courts.

Reasons why John Arnold, Ed Burke and the Court Officers, Bailiffs, etc. don’t want anyone intruding in “THEIR” world and exposing them and their reprehensible criminal way of conducting business by threatening, lying and bullying.

As taxpayers in this County, we not only should have a right to know what we are paying for in terms of the personnel hired by this County and State, they are obligated to transparency so that we have assurance they are acting in “OUR” best interests.

Court personnel, whether State or County who threaten citizen’s personal property or the persons themselves, for any reason, is unacceptable and inexcusable.

Where is the customer service in this County? Who is serving who? It seems we are the servants to this wanton lack of respect coming from the Courts.

Another example of Arnold’s inability to control what goes on in the Cheshire County Superior Court House.

Another reason for the NH Redress Committee to investigate the goings on here in Cheshire County.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Judge Stephen reprimanded over political signs fallout …….. Only in Print: Means the Union Leader Tries to Controls what you read………But You can Read the Decision from the PCC for Free Right Here

The Union Leader wants your money.....................Do you need to hand it over? Not necessarily ................................See below what they want to charge you for - It's free.

By KATHRYN MARCHOCKI
New Hampshire Union Leader
Published Sep 29, 2011 at 3:00 am (Updated Sep 28, 2011)

MANCHESTER — Judge Robert S. Stephen was reprimanded for angrily accusing a city firefighter of illegally posting political signs last fall that told “lies” about his brother, John Stephen, who was then the Republican nominee for governor.

This is another example of the exclusive content we publish each day only in print editions of the Union Leader and Sunday News and our digital e-Edition (a page-for-page replica of the newspaper available as a subscription or as a single copy). For more recent articles appearing exclusively in print, click here. For print subscription information, click here. For e-Edition info, click here. 

Comments
Note: Comments are the opinion of the respective poster and not of the publisher.

Mike Roy said: 
"only in print" seem to be only negative stories about conservatives.
 (Report Abuse) September 29, 2011 7:06 am

Dean Frazier said:
I guess that "do you know who I am? I will have your job" tirade didn't turn out so well.
(Report Abuse) September 29, 2011 8:29 am

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110929/NEWS15/709299961


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

READ the Judical Conduct Committe Reprimand and Public Sanction of Judge Robert S Stephen  for FREE

Read the entire Reprimand from the Judicial Condcut Committe from the State of NH Courts website:

 http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/judconductcomm/docs/In%20the%20matter%20of%20Justice%20Stephen.pdf

Excerpts: 
Canon 2A
Failure to Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety by Not Acting at all Times in a Manner that Promotes Public Confidence in the Judiciary.
Canon 2B
Failure to Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety by Allowing Family, Social, Political or Other Relationships to Influence the Judge’s Judicial Conduct or Judgment, and Lending the Prestige of the Judicial Office to Advance the Private Interests of the Judge or Others.
Canon 5A(3)
A Judge Shall Not engage in Any Other Political Activity Except on Behalf of Measures to Improve the Law, the Legal System, or the Administration of Justice.
IV. DISCIPLINE:
Upon a finding that Judge Stephen has violated Canons 2A, 2B and 5A(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, based on the above analysis, the Committee finds that the violations are not a sufficiently serious nature to warrant the imposition of formal discipline by the court. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 40(8)(f), and with the consent of Judge Stephen, the Committee issues a Reprimand. The Committee urges that Judge Stephen be more mindful of the implications of his personal as well as professional conduct and remarks going forward in light of his office and its attendant obligations.

Judge Stephen shall also reimburse the Committee for all cost associated with the investigation and resolution of this matter.

Based upon the facts and circumstances surrounding Judge Stephen’s self-report (JC-10-066-C), the related grievance filed by Lieutenant Healy of the City of Manchester Fire Department, the Committee’s own investigation of these matters (which included but was not limited to Judge Stephen’s recorded statement under oath) and pursuant to Judge Stephen’s stipulated violation of Canon 2 A, 2 B and 5 A (3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct the Committee has voted to publicly sanction Judge Stephen for violations of Canons 2 A, 2 B and 5 A (3) by way of this Reprimand.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Shakeup at the Hooksett PD - Maybe the Winchester PD will be next.

A couple of interesting reads on the Hooksett Chief of Police woes. Anything look familiar?
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110925/NEWS07/709259937
http://www.wmur.com/news/29283123/detail.html

Is the day coming that, Phillips, the Chief in Winchester will be in the headlines?

Blatantly lying to law enforcement officials and the public. Is it only a matter of time before his goose too gets cooked and then makes the news in a big way?

He’s law enforcement after all, and shouldn’t he be held accountable for his actions too?

And his second, Lt. Roberts helped him pull it off.

Old news? Perhaps. Still relevant? You betcha.

Phillips whose stories ramble on in a seemingly pathological liar way, has on numerous occasions given deliberately false, misleading, fake and untruthful information to the AG’s office and to other Town and State Agencies in an effort to conceal his actions, as if that is a defense and/or has made excuses for his participation in illegal activity, when he’s been caught in the act.

For some reason, the following actions, brought to the attention of the AG’s office have thus far protected Phillips.

The following information comes from one or more of the many reports and investigations conducted, including those conducted by the AG’s office itself, down in the town of Winchester, NH.

Of interest, the AG’s office and the other criminal investigative reports never reveal or disclose that the allegations are lies and those that brought them forward were either misinformed or lying themselves, instead they skirt around that issue and try to explain away Phillips justification for his crimes, as if that really matters.

1.) Stories such as that of Phillips and NH State Dispatcher, Eric Ammann - money changing hands, money coming from Phillips own pocket and going to Ammann's pocket, in an action that is nothing less than a bribe. What other bribes has he been involved with? On the following links you can find the truth along with the reports and documents that support the truth. Documents from the town that show Phillips lied to the AG’s. Documents from the AG’s office, with statements from Phillips made to the AG’s investigator, Tracy, that contradict both the allegations made against Phillips, the Town’s policy, the Town’s acknowledgement the money didn't come from the Town and that which Phillips told the AG’s office which was in fact true, he offered Amman money and Ammann accepted.

From the Ag’s report:

The alleged crime being investigated: “Reportedly the Chief gave Ammann $1,500.00 out of his own pocket if Ammann would take a fulltime position with the department.”

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rZhhqOokS-s/TmO3buaflVI/AAAAAAAAAng/C6qDEaqFKfI/s1600/AGR.jpg

Phillips response to the AG’s questioning: “Phillips approached Eric who was working as a full time state police dispatcher reference working at Winchester on a fulltime basis. Eric was hesitant to do that as he would lose benefits he had with the state. Phillips offered Eric a $2,000 bonus to offset the loss. Eric would accept the Chief’s offer.”

The following comes from correspondence and dialogue between the Town and RTK requests:

“It is my understanding that when Eric Ammann was hired fulltime at the Winchester Police Department, the Town paid him a substantial sign on bonus.”

“Can you tell me specifically how much this additional salary cost the taxpayers?”

“I would also like to analyze the line item that shows this money being paid to him.”

“Who authorized this sign on bonus? Was this done by Selectmen’s vote? If so, can you tell me at what BOS meeting this vote took place during?”

Also, how much did Fred Ziegler or any of the other new police officers get for sign on bonuses and what line item was to record them?”

In a response from Town Administrator Joan Morel dated 10/28/10.

“The Finance Department has looked into the financial, payroll and personel files regarding your requests, and has reported back that the Town of Winchester has not authorized any sign-on bonuses for any member of the Police Department and there is no line item for this.”

An email back to the Town to ascertain there was NO misunderstanding of the information being requested:

In an email back to Morel dated 10/29/10.

“I appreciate you getting back to me on this, but this information doesn’t make sense. I have come across public records where Gary Phillips stated he offered Eric a $2,000.00 sign on bonus, to offset his loss in benefits to go to the WPD full-time and that Eric accepted that offer.”

“There must be a record of this as taxes and pension contributions would be reflected in the payment.”

“Can you please re-check the records?”

The second response from the Town Administrator:

“This is written in response to both of your concerns, namely the gym memberships and sign-on bonus.”

“As explained in my email of 10/28/10, the Finance Department has looked into the financial, payroll and personel files regarding your sign-on requests, and has reported back that the Town of Winchester has not authorized any sign-on bonuses for any member of the Police Department and there is no line item for this.”

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rZhhqOokS-s/TmO3buaflVI/AAAAAAAAAng/C6qDEaqFKfI/s1600/AGR.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OPThsdy03qM/TmO3Eifc-UI/AAAAAAAAAnc/_WXHZGRiszY/s1600/AGP.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fTozoa5o3Ls/TmQXnPpWDAI/AAAAAAAAAnw/i_YOkhYRJaI/s1600/email1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X223ItGGW_w/TmQgU91WhNI/AAAAAAAAAoI/2fSBU9LOzPo/s1600/email3.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SP-2Bx_SJ8Y/TmQiPZEAb_I/AAAAAAAAAoY/-gnZVeHtYto/s1600/email7.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-anSWmB4vd00/TmQjNhlfVgI/AAAAAAAAAog/5AUiatzzDzY/s1600/email8.jpg

http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/2011/09/michael-delaney-when-is-nh-attorney.html

The money didn’t come from the Town, yet Phillips told the AG’s he gave $2,000 to Ammann, he admits Ammann took the offer and Ammann said he got it via personal check belonging to Phillips.

A bribe from one cop to another cop. And covered up by the AG’s office at that.

2.) Then there is the banking fraud – again involving an investigation of the AG’s. They found Phillips to be in violation of the banking laws, yet in a sugary sweet letter glossed over that fact, probably in the hopes no one would notice.

From page 1:

“We reviewed documents and other material provided to this Department alleging illegal activity that resulted in the removal of certain officers in the Winchester Police Association, the installment of successor officers, and changes in control and custody of the Winchester Police Association bank account. Our Findings….”

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jisZ_H-yUSg/TQhEejtUaJI/AAAAAAAAAbY/aIUxFM4hoLY/s1600/1a.jpg

Page 2:

“The following receipt of these reports allegations of illegal activity were presented to the Attorney General Director of Charitable Trusts as follows:

• “The Treasurer of the Winchester Police Association, Daniel Reppucci, was removed from the office in violation of the by-laws”

• “Acting Treasurer, Gary A Phillips, removed the Treasurer’s name from the associations bank account and substituted Gary A Phillips and Christopher Roberts as signers on said account without proper authorization and in violation of the by-laws which require a meeting of the membership be called and a secret ballot held to elect new officer’s”

• “Chief Gary A Phillips, Acting Treasurer, Christopher Roberts, Vice-President” (not included in this decision, but an interesting note that is established in the investigation is that Roberts promoted himself to President at the same time Phillips promoted himself to Acting-Treasurer) “and Maryan Platz, Secretary failed to follow the requirements of the bylaws of the Winchester Police Association, in (1) not following proper procedure in order to call a special meeting of the members; (2) nor following the provision of the bylaws in replacing the Treasurer with an Acting Treasurer, an office not authorized in the bylaws; and (3) utilizing a document called “Certificate of Resolution of a Corporation” which references a meeting of the Winchester Police Association that did not conform to the requirements of the bylaws and which ultimately led to the removal of the duly elected Treasurer, Daniel Reppucci’s name from the associations checking account at TD Banknorth.”

“Based upon a review of the allegations the Attorney General Charitable Trust Unit has concluded Gary A Phillips, Christopher Roberts, and Maryan Platz did not follow the bylaws of the Winchester Police Association in electing new officers and in changing the authorized names on the associations bank account and hereby requires the following corrective actions be taken…..”

They didn’t follow the law when they changed the authorized names on the associations bank account?

That means they broke the law. Pure and simple. You can’t present a bank with false, fake and fraudulent documents just because you want someone’s name off a bank account. It’s illegal and against the law.

There are legal mechanisms in place for changing and removing authorized signers on bank accounts and Phillips again, chose to bypass the law in favor of breaking it.

Guilty. The Chief of Police and his Second in command found guilty. Found Guilty of Breaking the Law, Guilty when they gave TD Banknorth fraudulent paperwork for the purpose of causing the change of authorized names on a bank account, not belonging to them, by using an unauthorized means.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KbvF8jDKjFo/Tn9G6N0wXEI/AAAAAAAAAos/eYNf5FWYUIo/s1600/1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jisZ_H-yUSg/TQhEl1TF__I/AAAAAAAAAbc/BAmE5E2q8NU/s1600/3a.jpg

http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/b/post-preview?oken=zCblojIBAAA.a1NtLGxdnNv3U5M_vtezvQ.1Br4tH3dDJ4GxCiSU7VgAw&postId=7228237184092356944&type=POST

Since this investigation was ongoing at the same time the AG’s criminal Investigator Dick Tracy was also conducting his investigation and was made aware of this “other” investigation, one wonders why he didn’t elaborate or include the findings in his report?

He quietly alludes to it, alludes to knowing criminal activity has been alleged, even gets an email from the Charitable Trust Unit. But he ignores it. Wonder why?

These pesty, pesty cover-ups aren’t so covered up anymore. And they speak volumes in a very unkindly way about those that we entrusted to protect us from the scum of the earth and the bad guys. We find out it’s them that we really have to watch out for.

3.) Lastly we’ll use the Phillips got caught lying about the criminal investigation he asked the Cheshire County Sheriff’s office to conduct, as a way to get back at Reppucci as the final example of Phillips perpetual lies. Reported to the Sheriff’s Dept, someone had broken into Phillips office and stolen some documents off his desk. And then made copies. And then returned them secretly with no one knowing. All this in the Sheriff's report.

Caught lying in testimony, we hear him as he testifies under oath, in his own words a big fat lie.

We hear as Phillips lies and it reinforces the idea that perhaps he had an ulterior motive to frame Reppucci as a way to get rid of him.

After all, investigating a break-in and a theft from the police station. A break in at the police department that doesn’t make the newspapers? A crime reported by the Chief of Police, occurring in his own police dept office and the newspapers don’t pick up on that?

Phillips testimony:

And what did you do with that concern?

“With that concern it was a a, kinda a tough situation because it’s somethin’, there would, there would, I couldn’t really investigate it thoroughly because they would cry bias, no matter what I did, investigate it somewhat within, ah you would routinely, what they call farming out or you would ask another agency to investigate a case for you when it’s a member of your own organization, ah that’s committed an offense and then I think it was July 9th , ummm, Dectective Macie came to the police department to interview Sgt. Reppucci to find out, ya know, what he knew about this document and then the first time I told him he needs to answer the questions posed to him by Detective, umm, by Deputy Macie and he told me that he’d answer the questions but only after he had a chance to talk with his attorney and that’s when I told him that it’s not a criminal investigation, it’s an internal investigation, involving an administrative charge”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPs_UWqbJjE&feature=player_embedded

Really Phillips?

How come the letter Sheriff Foote wrote to Reppucci, states it was a criminal investigation Deputy Macie was there to conduct? In fact, the letter says the Sheriff’s Dept hadn’t conducted any internal investigations at Winchester.

“I am in receipt of your request for documents related to investigation report #09-63-OF. The investigation in question is a criminal investigation. It is not an internal investigation. In 2009 the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Office was not requested to nor did it conduct any internal investigations on you or any other member of the Winchester Police Department."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jisZ_H-yUSg/TIJ7nvIbB-I/AAAAAAAAAJk/Ijri4VMiNAY/s1600/1.jpg

And how come the Deputy’s criminal investigation shows it was a Misdemeanor crime that was being investigating and not that of an administrative violation as he testified to?

Right under the Confidential Marking, you can see plain as day they were investigating a crime, a Misdemeanor to be exact. It certainly and clearly does not say they were investigating an administrative charge as Phillips testifies to when giving his false and fraudulent testimony under oath.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EuQ9GcWA92g/Tn9fnNmKb3I/AAAAAAAAAo0/lqlHncF3HgA/s1600/1.jpg

And why is there an investigation conducted by Phillips, that’s called an internal investigation being conducted by Phillips? Where in it, he refers to the criminal investigation the Sheriff’s dept is conducting. A criminal investigation into the chain of custody of the document he alleges was stolen from office and that he reported as stolen to the Sheriff’s Dept.

Hmmm. Is it possible yet another lie has been uncovered?

Is Phillips trying to combine two separate and distinctly different investigations into one so he can cover his lies to unsuspecting listeners, while he was attempting to stack the deck against one of his employees, after that employee had recently learned of criminal activity Phillips was both involved in and had covered up? Criminal activity he had reported.

Fact: Phillips testified he told Reppucci he had to cooperate in the Sheriff’s investigation or he would suspend him, telling Reppucci he had to cooperate in a criminal investigation, ordering him to answer questions of a criminal investigator, conducting an investigation into a crime, thus illegally ordering Reppucci to violate his Constitutional Rights – Miranda.

Fact: As we heard in the testimony of Phillips, his testimony is clear, Phillips testified he told Reppucci the investigation of the Sheriff’s was an internal investigation and not a criminal investigation.

Why?

Phillips has changed his story and testimony so many times it’s likely he doesn’t even know the truth. Every time he’s confronted with a fact that doesn’t fit into the story he has told he changes the story to fit the fact.

And this guy is an authority figure with powers over us? Scary stuff.

Was Phillips looking for a lynching or to get to the truth?

Fact: Phillips has a pattern of lying and he doesn’t care to whom.

Phillips can't hide behind - it's just a couple of disgruntled ex employees anymore. There's too much information, too much proof and too many credible documents that aren't in his favor.

The questions become;  

Is Phillips a complete  moron who doesn’t know the law or a complete moron who knows it but doesn’t give a damn if he doesn’t abide by it?

Maybe he’s both.

Either way there is no room in law enforcement for people like this and exposing them is the best way and the quickest way to getting rid of them. The sooner we get them off the streets the better off we’ll all be.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Michael Delaney - When is the NH Attorney Generals Office Going to STOP COVERING UP Crimes when Conducting Investigations?

Michael Delaney - When is the NH Attorney Generals Office Going to STOP COVERING UP the Crimes Committed by NH's Law Enforcement when Your Agency Conducts Investigations into allegations brought forward to your office?

Your Office Does NO Justice for the people when you cover up these crimes committed by Law Enforcment. And covering up these crimes acts to undermine the good people in Law Enforcement by protecting those Rogue Cops that are in place.  

Delaney - Do you and your Office Condone Criminal Activity Amongst the Police Departments in the State of NH?

Where is the integrity in the investigative reports? Numerouse mis facts, unanswered questions and questioned answered that make no sense. Facts omitted from the reports coming from your office and your criminal investigation division.

Chief Phillips, Town of Winchester Police Department admitted, to your investigator to he gave money, thousands of dollars, a "Bonus" as it was called in your investigator's report, to Eric Ammann in exchange that he come work for Phillips and the WPD on a fulltime basis, OUT OF HIS PERSONAL MONIES.

Apparently, Phillips wanted Eric Ammann to come work for him so badly, bad enough that he would rather by pass the "Normal" hiring practice and pay Ammann out of his pocket, thousands of dollars to get him to come work for him and the AG's office doesn't find something wrong, weird, or unusual about that?

Is that how police departments in the State of NH fill vacanies? The Chief typically takes money out of his own pocket to get the people he wants?

Are our police departments in the State of NH, nothing more than a bunch of bodies bought, sold and traded off by the Chiefs of Police that run our Police Departments?

Erc Ammann has already publicly stated the money came in the form of a personal check from Phillips. Your investigator doesn't include that in the report. Also, not included in the report is that the Town of Winchester has no "Bonus" options in it's budget.

Isn't it expected a Chief of Police that they are supposed to be above board, above reproach, following the laws as they expect of those they arrests? Or do they have special privileges and powers that the AG’s Office bestow upon them that allows them to break the law in a wanton fashion and then get away with when it gets covered up, such as what is happening with Phillips?

How does the AG’s Office justify one Public Official paying another Public Official, money from their own pocket in exchange for a favor when they given information that it occurred? And in their justification of that crime aren’t they guilty of a cover-up and putting the community and the general public at risk by ignoring information regarding participation of public officials in corrupt practices?

The AG’s Office Covering up for Law Enforcement Officers who have repeatedly broken the laws is not good for the Public as a whole and is not in the Publics best interest.

When the proof exists and it’s the public who gathers that proof it shows the AG’s Office has a reprehensible disregard for the public, Mr. Delaney.

You were appointed to ensure that Law Enforcement in the State followed the laws and you are responsible to ensure they don't break the laws once brought to your attention.

How does any Public Official justify giving another Public Official money in exchange for favors?

A guy who is supposed to be a seasoned law enforcement official and criminal investigator for the NH Attorney General’s Office, Richard (Dick) Tracy, fails to include in his investigative report that he asked Phillips pointedly and directly – Phillips did you or did you not give Ammann money from your own pocket in exchange for taking a full time position with the Winchester Police Department?

It would stand to reason that since Tracy discussed the incident with Phillips and we know this from the AG’s report it was discussed, the question should have come up, since that was one of the many allegations Tracy was in Winchester to investigate to begin with.

Why would this not be in the report?

Why would Tracy drive 1 ½ to 2 hours one to go all the way to Winchester for a face to face interview with Phillips and not have in his report that he asked him if he personally gave Ammann money in exchange for a full time position with Winchester?

Is Delaney and the AG’s office trying to cover this up and even more? When is the NH Attorney General's office going to finally admit that they can't hide the corruption anymore and that they have bad cops in the State of NH they refuse to deal with while putting the public at risk?

And what about the Town of Winchester and the officials running the Town who knew about this?

The Chief of Police, Gary Phillips (Winchester Police Department), admitted and told the AG’s investigator that a money transaction occurred between himself and then NH State Police Dispatcher – Eric Ammann for the sole purpose of enticing Ammann to come work full-time for the WPD.

Phillips has admitted to reliable sources, but apparently not to the AG’S office, according to this report, that he paid Ammann from his own personnel checking account for the sole purpose of enticing Ammann to come work for the WPD. Phillips decided to sweeten his offer of a full-time position by offering Ammann a couple extra thousand dollars in salary, which he would thoughtfully provide out of his own pocket, if Ammann would make the decision to leave State Police and come to the WPD full-time and the condition was that he so immediately.

Ammann has also admitted to other reliable sources he received MONIES directly from the Chief in the form of a personnel check and NOT FROM THE TOWN OF WINCHESTER, in exchange for him agreeing to immediately come to work at the WPD at the time the offer was presented.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. If it smells like a bribe???? What else can you call it? Read the RSA on Corruption and Bribes. Open link to see copy of document.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bQDwo68BmG4/TmQQ6H-xisI/AAAAAAAAAns/AnHwZRhm0iU/s1600/RSA.jpg

Read the following quoted excerpts from the AG’s report as documented by Tracy in his interviews and conclusions, and see whether or not Phillips gave Ammann money from his own personal bank accounts in exchange for coming on board to work for his police department full time.

Repucci response to Tracy’s questions regarding his knowledge of the incident during the Reppucci interview: “Approximately 2 years ago, Eric Ammann was working as a full time dispatcher for the NH State Police and a part time officer with Winchester. He had been trying to land a full time position as a police officer but was not able to pass the physical test. Chief Phillips approached Ammann and asked him to work full time with the department in the hopes that Ammann would eventually pass the PT test in the near future. Ammann was reluctant to do so noting that he needed the full time benefits that he had with State Police. Reportedly the Chief gave Ammann $1,500.00 out of his own pocket if Ammann would take a full time position with his department.” Open link to see copy of document.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rZhhqOokS-s/TmO3buaflVI/AAAAAAAAAng/C6qDEaqFKfI/s1600/AGR.jpg

Phillips response to Tracy’s questions about his information during Phillips interview: “A few years back Eric expressed his desire to work full time as a police officer, Winchester, was short handed having lost two officers to Hinsdale PD with a third officer out on workman comp everyone was working more overtime than they cared to. Phillips approached Eric who was working as a full time police dispatcher reference working at Winchester on a full time basis. Eric was hesitant to do that as he would lose benefits that he had with the state. Philips offered Eric $2,000 bonus to offset the loss. Phillips noted that he was desperate at the time, his officers were working more hours than they should and he feared for their safety from being overtired. Eric would accept the Chief’s offer…..” Open link to see copy of document.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OPThsdy03qM/TmO3Eifc-UI/AAAAAAAAAnc/_WXHZGRiszY/s1600/AGP.jpg

From Tracy’s Report, in his Summary of the reported crime: “The Chief paid Ammann $1,500 dollar to take a job with the department. That allegation shocked Chief Phillips. First the Chief doesn’t understand how that would benefit him or the department. Secondly the Chief pointed out that Ammann is a local guy who the Chief feels would fit in real well with the community and the department. Phillips assisted Ammann with getting a membership at the local gym. Phillips stated that around two years ago his department was shorthanded. Everyone was working additional hours, which became a safety concern for the Chief. He approached Ammann requesting that he work full time for the PD instead of part time. Ammann a dispatcher with the NHSP was concerned with losing his benefits. Phillips offered Ammann a $2,000 bonus to help offset the cost of benefits he would lose if he came to work for full time for Winchester.” Open link to see copy of document.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1-Fjn192lx4/TmO3rTWum_I/AAAAAAAAAnk/ZlgCHtyD-No/s1600/AGS.jpg

It’s very interesting that Tracy doesn’t mention in his summary what is included in his report that Phillips acknowledged offering Ammann $2,000, “Philips offered Eric $2,000 bonus to offset the loss” and that “Eric would accept the Chief’s offer”.

How does a Chief of Police, any Chief of Police get away with this?

1. Giving his personal money to a subordinate officer in exchange for that officer having to meet conditions he set forth such as coming to work for him at the PD?

And,

2. By-passing the Town approved budgets for police officers salaries by admitting to propping up the salary of one of them in a manner that is outside the scope of how employees at the Town of Winchester are paid?

Is Phillips that incapable of knowing right from wrong? Incapable of knowing when he follows the law or when breaks the law? Or does he just not care?

Someone with the amount of power entrusted to him as Phillips has, who arbitrarily and without regard violates continually, is a detriment to society as a whole, sends out the wrong message that breaking the law is OK and slaps in the face the people he is sworn to protect.

Phillips, sworn to protect and serve, entrusted to do so, a Public Servant who’s job is to serve the Public, not his own self interests, who has a history of doing as he pleases because he has no fear of reprisal and continues to act as if he is above the laws, sending a very dangerous message that should not be tolerated.

Did Phillips tell the Town of this transaction so that the proper income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service and State of NH, so that the proper amount of taxes and pension were paid? Of course not, it wasn’t the Town that paid Ammann, therefore not their responsibility to do so.

Did Phillips by-pass letting the IRS about this income? Did he provide Ammann with a 1099? Or do Phillips and Amman consider this money to be a gift?

Moreover, was this just a cover-up of a crime of bribery between the Chief and an Officer by Dick Tracy, the investigator for the Delaney’s NH AG’s office?

Why has Delaneys’s NH AG’s office covered up this and more? Is this why we can’t get a proper investigation of our elected and appointed officials misdeeds? Has the NH AG’s office and Delaney turned it’s back on Winchester, NH and the honest and decent people who live here?

Are we left to fend for ourselves and wait for more harm to come to the citizenry of this town? More lawsuits, more injuries and more scandals?

Having already been presented with this information previously why didn’t the AG’s office apply for search warrants of both Gary Phillips and Eric Amman’s financial records when Tracy first learned money passed hands between Phillips and Ammann? Why didn’t Delaney order this be done and why hasn’t it been done?

Ammann has already admitted to others that the money came from Phillips personally and not from the Town and that is confirmed from Phillips own statements during the interview between himself and the AG’s office.

Why didn’t the AG’s office, Tracy in particular feel compelled to interview Ammann as he did with Reppucci and Phillips and any others he may not have disclosed? Aren’t Ammann’s recollection of the events that transpired between himself and Phillips relevant? Aren’t his bank records relevant? Wouldn’t they show an important link between himself and Phillips and the money that exchanged hands between them for an unlawful purpose? Bribery of a Public Official and a Public Official accepting the bribe?

Wasn’t Phillips and Roberts being investigated for bank fraud when they submitted fraudulent paperwork containing false information to TD Bank in order to take over the Police Associations bank account and gain access to it at the same time this investigation was going on?

Isn’t presenting fake and fraudulent information to a bank, regardless of the reason or excuse, illegal? Criminal? Against the Law? Something Prosecutor’s prosecute people for? Something the Police charge people with? Something people go to jail for?

Didn’t the AG’s office find them in violation of the by-laws when they did that? And if they were in violation of the by-laws then they with absolute certainty they were in violation of the criminal laws so why did the AG’s office let them off the hook on that one and not prosecute anyone?

How is it they were made aware of all this illegal activity and more but looked the other way and pretended it never happened?

If the police can be bought and sold so easily out in the open in broad daylight, what are they doing behind the closed doors we never find out about? How can we trust or believe anything they say?

Phillips has already admitted to the AG”s the money went to Ammann.

What more evidence does the AG’s office need? How incompetent are they? They get information and they don’t follow through or is it won’t follow through?

Why didn’t Tracy bother to collect this evidence or have someone else do it so they could do a proper investigation and come to a conclusion based on the facts?

Tracy didn’t follow through on information he was given and that information, was information that he could have easily substantiated one way or another to true or false. Why not? Why didn’t he? Because he doesn’t have to? Not a valid excuse. It’s up to the AG Office to police the police. That’s one of their jobs.

Why didn’t Tracy review the Town’s payroll and personnel records belonging to Ammann and the rest of the police department for that matter? Those records would have shown inconsistencies of statements made by Phillips.

Inconsistencies, such as:

Overtime. The officers weren’t working hours upon hours of extra overtime during that period of time. A quick look at the payroll records easily reflect that. All Phillips did was shift around his personnel and changed their hours around to ensure the proper coverage.

As a matter of fact, quickly looking at the towns records will show that numerous outside police details were being participated in by his officers at this time. Extra hours being put in to make extra money outside of the police department. Extra hours that can only be authorized by Phillips himself.

If Phillips were so concerned about safety, why then would he have allowed the Town and his employees to be in potentially unsafe situations and in jeopardy by authorizing these outside details to begin with? “Phillips noted that he was desperate at the time, his officers were working more hours than they should and he feared for their safety from being overtired.” As quoted from the AG’s report.

So he wasn’t as desperate as the AG’s reports indicates. The AG’s office however, dropped the ball when they neglected to check the records and took Phillips word at face value or did a quiet under the table look the other way.

Quickly checking the records would have also left Tracy with the knowledge that none of the police officers were out on workers comp as Phillips stated to the AG’s office as documented in their report, “Winchester, was short handed having lost two officers to Hinsdale PD with a third officer out on workman comp”.

Had he checked these contradictions it may have sparked a question or two as follow-up to his original questions to all parties. But alas, Tracy never checked anything and instead relied on what he was told by the Chief, took that information at face and trusted his word.

Here’s another contradiction.

“The Chief paid Ammann $1,500 dollar to take a job with the department. That allegation shocked Chief Phillips. First the Chief doesn’t understand how that would benefit him or the department.” Again from the AG’s report. See link.

How could an allegation that the Chief paid Ammann $1,500 dollars shock him? He admitted to Tracy that is precisely what he did. Perhaps he was offended that the dollar amount Tracy questioned him about was $500.00 less than what he admitted to Tracy he offered, $2,000. It’s a strange statement to make regardless.

As to the benefit to him or his department that is simple. Phillips had already stated the benefit would be less overtime and less wear and tear on his officers. Which myth is debunked by the Town’s payroll records, approved outside department detail work that officers were participating in, as well as the schedule made by Phillips himself.

It’s not like Phillips hasn’t had practice or had to deal with conflicting and tricky schedules in the past. Shifting peoples work schedules around for a variety of different reasons such as illness, vacations, officers in training or in the academy or numerous other different scenarios. This was pretty much standard business as usual for the department.

A benefit to Phillips was that he didn’t have to work weekends if he hurried up and hired someone. Reportedly, it was really Phillips who was doing the complaining about the schedule, not everyone else. He had to work weekends and he didn’t like it.

The other benefit to Phillips was more personal.

Phillips, lost his Lieutenant, Theresa Sepe and his Corporal, Royce Pelkey to the Hinsdale PD, simultaneously.

Hinsdale had just fired Chris Roberts, after having demoted him some time earlier. His termination was for among other things his inability to get along with the Chief and his refusal to take a 2 week supervisor/management course in RI that the Chief wanted him to take. This is also part of the AG’s report.

The open positions in Hinsdale were enough for Sepe and Pelkey to apply for and then to flee to, both finally getting away from the WPD and the major disagreement they had with how Phillips ran the police department just as they desired to do.

Sepe had been a police officer in Winchester, the Town she lived in for 20 years, had worked under different Police Chiefs, yet she had to flee because of Phillips.

Phillips had been her commanding officer for about 3 years before she bailed, jumped ship or just plain took another job with another town, you pick the ending.

The fact is she abruptly left without any notice, took a demotion, increased her commute time and mileage to go take a job in another town all because of her conflicts with Phillips.

Sounds like she had no problems working with Gary Phillips right? Wrong. Phillips had been just a subordinate to her before he put the screws to the Town and took the position of Chief, but only after telling the Town Administrator he was only interested in the position for a couple of years and then would step down. As is a commonly known trait of Phillips, he never kept his word and never stepped down and we still have him around.

Then we have Pelkey. He too took a demotion to go work for Hinsdale. In fact, Phillips told Pelky that if agreed to stay he would promote him from Corporal to Sergeant. Pelkey turned down the offer, the promotion, more money and took a demotion from Corporal to Patrolmen and went to work for Hinsdale. Turning down a promotion, turning down more money, he opted for a demotion, probably a reduction in pay and an even longer commute than Sepe because he lived in Richmond and would now have to travel to Hinsdale just because of his conflicts with Phillips.

Of course, Sepe and Pelkey both have made it known their feelings for Phillips and none of those feelings were of admiration.

So Phillips had a BIG PR problem. Phillips also has a BIG EGO PROBLEM.

He didn’t want the word to get out that his police department was in shambles due to his mismanagement, he could lose his job if he were to be found an incompetent. Lose his job, his benefits, his paycheck. MOTIVE to BREAK the LAW?

So when Phillips says there was no gain for him he lies again, his gain is to save face by hurrying up the process of getting Ammann or anyone else for that matter signed on as a full time officer to take the heat off himself.

Make himself look good, that he had things under control and it was no loss or big deal for Sepe and Pelkey to be gone. Save face, save his job, save his paycheck and pension.

That was the motive, the game that Phillips played.

He would get someone in there immediately even if that meant he would pay that someone out of his own pocket. Put into the proper order, in the proper sequence the reality is, it was Phillips who was desperate and the desperation came from his fear of being ridiculed for being a poor manager, a Chief who couldn’t run a police department and the loss of his own job because of his inadequacies.

The Town of Winchester was asked through simple RTK requests, to review the records to determine whether bonuses or other additional money given, as a bonus, to Ammann and others. They were asked to review simple records and give simple answers to questions asked. Something Tracy should have done.

For instance in an email to the Town dated 10/23/10:

“It is my understanding that when Eric Ammann was hired fulltime at the Winchester Police Department, the Town paid him a substantial sign on bonus.”
“Can you tell me specifically how much this additional salary cost the taxpayers?”
“I would also like to analyze the line item that shows this money being paid to him.”
“Who authorized this sign on bonus? Was this done by Selectmen’s vote? If so, can you tell me at what BOS meeting this vote took place during?”
Also, how much did Fred Ziegler or any of the other new police officers get for sign on bonuses and what line item was to record them?” Open link to see copy of document.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fTozoa5o3Ls/TmQXnPpWDAI/AAAAAAAAAnw/i_YOkhYRJaI/s1600/email1.jpg

In a response from Town Administrator Joan Morel dated 10/28/10.

“The Finance Department has looked into the financial, payroll and personel files regarding your requests, and has reported back that the Town of Winchester as not authorized any sign-on bonuses for any member o the Police Department and there is no line item for this.” Open link to see copy of document.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X223ItGGW_w/TmQgU91WhNI/AAAAAAAAAoI/2fSBU9LOzPo/s1600/email3.jpg

In an email back to Morel dated 10/29/10.

“I appreciate you getting back to me on this, but this information doesn’t make sense. I have come across public records where Gary Phillips stated he offered Eric a $2,000.00 sign on bonus, to offset his lose in benefits to go to the WPD full-time and that Eric accepted that offer.”

“There must be a record of this as taxes and pension contributions would e reflected in the payment.”

“Can you please re-check the records?” Open link to see copy of document.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SP-2Bx_SJ8Y/TmQiPZEAb_I/AAAAAAAAAoY/-gnZVeHtYto/s1600/email7.jpg

Then in an email dated 11/8/10, Morel writes back:

“This is written in response to both of your concerns, namely the gym memberships and sign-on bonus.”

“As explained in my email of 10/28/10, the Finance Department has looked into the financial, payroll and personel files regarding your sign-on requests, and has reported back that the Town of Winchester has not authorized any sign-on bonuses for any member of the Police Department and there is no line item for this.”

“The Town of Winchester does not offer either sign-on bonuses or gym memberships. The Board of Selectmen reserves the right to make executive decisions if members feel an employee needs additional support.” Open link to see copy of document.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-anSWmB4vd00/TmQjNhlfVgI/AAAAAAAAAog/5AUiatzzDzY/s1600/email8.jpg

In a response back to Morel in an email dated 11/10/10 whcih can be seen at the above link.

“Specifically, how much did the town pay for Eric Ammann’s gym membership or reimbursement, to whom it was paid and when was it paid.” See Link.

The response from Morel on 11/10/10, again the document cans be seen on the link above.

“Your request does not stipulate any particular governmental record, only questions to be answered. However, if you are referring to documentation regarding this request, the cost of three (3) pages copied is $1.50. Please remit that amount to the Town, and copies will be provided to you”See Link.

Then in yet another email dated 11/9/10 the Town is again asked, this time from a different requestor of information and is as follows:

“Have the selectmen authorized or approved any bonuses for Eric Amman? If so what are the dates and amounts of these bonuses?”

“Have the selectmen authorized or approved any payments or reimbursements to Eric Amann for the purpose of a gym membership?”

“Have any of the WPD employees or any other members of the Town’s employees been reimbursed or approved to receive any monetary or monetary equivalents above their budgeted salary and benefits as outlined in the budget?”

"If so, who made the authorizations? Were any votes taken and if so when? If so who received the benefit, date and purpose of benefit and what budget lines are these items charged to?” Open link below to see copy of document.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IK0ZHR-eoWs/TmQktK9c2nI/AAAAAAAAAoo/sBgpR5Vvkro/s1600/email10.jpg

Response from Morel on 11/10/10:

“Your request does not stipulate any particular governmental record, only questions to be answered. However, if you are referring to documentation regarding this request, the cost is .50 per page.”

“Requests about Eric Amman are reasonably described, and the three (3) pages will be copied for you at a cost of $1.50. Please remit that amount to the Town, and copies will be provided to you”

"Please be more specific about the rest of your questions so that we may estimate the cost involved and be of assistance to you.” See Link.

Was this more preferential treatment that Eric Ammann received, in the form of additional income, beyond what he got from Phillips? Was this additional income included by the Town when they reported his wages and earnings to the State and Federal Governments and to the retirement system?

The responses pretty well substantiate that the money that Ammann received for coming to the WPD full time didn’t come from the taxpayers, which substantiates the fact that the money did come from an outside source and gives credence to Ammann stating it came from Phillips personally. Which was exactly what was reported to the AG’s office and precisely what Phillips was questioned on by the AG’s office, to which Phillips admitted to Tracy he did in fact offer money to Ammann and that Ammann accepted that offer. This all acknowledged by the AG’s office in it’s own report that Phillips said he offered Ammann $2,000 and Ammann accepted the offer.

So in nutshell –

1.Phillips asked Ammann to come to the WPD to work full time.

2.Ammann said NO, he couldn’t afford to because of some benefit he was getting from SP.

3.Phillips, instead of taking "NO" for an answer, then offers Ammann $2,000 out of his own pocket to cover that loss if he agrees to immediately sign on with Winchester.

4. Ammann agrees to accept the new offer under the new terms and takes the $2,000 personal check from Phillips and immediately goes full time at the WPD.

5. Down the road, Ammann confesses to other officers about the incident and circumstances who in turn report the bribe.

6. The AG’s gets involved whe nthey are made aware of the allegation, they question Phillips and Phillips admits to giving Ammann a $2,000 bonus and also admits that Ammann accepted it.

7. According to Tracy's report, Reppucci gets questioned and he tells Tracy he was told the money came from Phillips personally and not from the Town.

8. Tracy does nothing further. He doesn’t even question Ammann.

So the original allegation made against Phillips of questionable and illegal activity Phillips had engaged in when he offered his personal money to persuade a public official, Ammann, to come work for him has been established as an allegation based on truth and facts and that indeed money changed hands between the two of them for their own selfish gain.

Why didn’t Tracy go to the Town Hall office on August 26th, the day he was at the police department and ask to inspect the towns records? The same records that were requested through a RTK request. Mounting proof Tracy chose to ignore what he was told as there is no reason he would not have been able to access this same information himself through the AG’s office.

The records show no bonuses given – no sign on bonuses in the policy, none authorized by the BOS. How much clearer would it need to be?

No money exchanged between the Town of Winchester and Eric Ammann except budget approved weekly payroll.

Why didn’t Tracy ask to inspect Amman’s payroll records which we know show he didn’t receive any bonuses or sign on bonuses?

Why was Tracy so negligent in his investigation for Delaney's AG Office? What was his motive? Too much work, vacation schedule, incompetence or just a plain cover-up? There has to be a reason why Tracy just ignored this inforamtion of crimainal activty between Phillips and Ammann.

From all the information presented to Tracy and here it’s pretty clear that Phillips admitted giving Ammann a couple thousand dollars and Ammann accepted it, in exchange for a full time position at the Town of Winchester PD.

Here’s the NH RSA under the Criminal Code for Corrupt Practices or to use a common phrase a “bribe” and the pertinet parts underlined and bolded.

TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 640 CORRUPT PRACTICES
Section 640:2

640:2 Bribery in Official and Political Matters.

I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if:

(a) He, promises, offers, or gives any pecuniary benefit to another with the purpose of influencing the other's action, decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, nomination, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter; or

(b) Being a public servant, party official, candidate for electoral office, or voter, he solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit from another knowing or believing the other's purpose to be as described in subparagraph I(a), or fails to report to a law enforcement officer that he has been offered or promised a pecuniary benefit in violation of subparagraph I(a).

II. As used in this section and other sections of this chapter, the following definitions apply:

(a) "Public servant" means any officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision thereof, including judges, legislators, consultants, jurors, and persons otherwise performing a governmental function. A person is considered a public servant upon his election, appointment or other designation as such, although he may not yet officially occupy that position. A person is a candidate for electoral office upon his public announcement of his candidacy.

b) "Party official" means any person holding any post in a political party whether by election, appointment or otherwise.

(c) "Pecuniary benefit" means any advantage in the form of money, property, commercial interest or anything else, the primary significance of which is economic gain; it does not include economic advantage applicable to the public generally, such as tax reduction or increased prosperity generally.Source. 1971, 518:1, eff Nov. 1, 1973.

RSA 640:2 confirms Phillips committed a class B felony when he promised, offered and gave Ammann a pecuniary benefit, in this case cash from his own pocket with the promise of a full time position with the WPD. Cash given for the sole purpose of influencing Ammann’s decision to immediately quit his job with State Police to come work for the him after Ammann told him he could not financially afford to immediately quit State Police and go to work at Winchester full time.

Another words Phillips cash payout can be construed as a cash bribe based on the law. He gave money out of his own pocket to another public servant to sway and influence for the purpose of his desire.

Under the same RSA Ammann committed a class B felony when he, being a public servant accepted and agreed to accept a monetary benefit from Phillips knowing that Phillips purpose for doing so was to sway Ammann to agree to be hired immediately. To make matters worse, Ammann, a sworn police officer who worked part time for 10 years and knew or should have known the statues, was obligated under the statute to report to a law enforcement officer that he has been offered or promised a pecuniary benefit in violation of the law.

Or, to be put into simple terms Phillips offered him a cash bribe to come to work for Winchester immediately and Ammann accepted it. Amman then kept quiet about for almost a year and half. He finally told other officer who in turn reported the bribe. The crime was then “officially” reported, but again not by Ammann. Up until now it’s been kept a pretty quiet secret and little was known about the truth surrounding the entire events. The story has now been opened up for public view.

Based on the email correpsondence the Town has known about this for almost a year at minimum. Yet they continue to let Phillips run the show and do nothing to stop him, increasing day by day the liabilty that will eventually be paid to all those who seek justice and relief.Those running around in Town Hall ought not to sit smugly in their arm chairs believing that they can't be found persaonnlly liable or that they are somehow protected by immunity. That might not be a defense when it can clearly be proved through documents that they have been notified numerous times over several years, warned and repeatedly asked to intervene and have continued to fail to do so.

And when is the FBI going to start investigating the corruption in this town and this state?

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Cheshire County NH’s Judge John P Arnold’s Retirement announcement comes just ahead of Hearings on his Impeachment…..

Accepted by The House Rules Committee, a Petition naming Judge John P Arnold, Marital Master David Forrest and the Cheshire County Superior Court, filed by Rep. Jeff Oligny on behalf of Dr. David D. Vandenberg has been accepted and will now go to the Redress Committee.
 
May 10, 2011 Rep. Jeffrey Oligny appeared on behalf of Dr. David D. Vandenberg with a grievance against a Superior Court justice allowing a guardian ad litem to move the court, failing to provide due process or findings of harm, and other complaints…
 
http://www.timothyhorrigan.com/documents/house-rules.110510.html 
 
From the decisions coming out of the Courthouse and from the Judges and Marital Masters to Arnold’s decision to ban….. across the board, all recording devices in Keene’s Court buildings, against the laws of open access to government, having the intended and chilling effect of creating a wall of secrecy and unaccountability within the Courthouses, violating the Constitution, the Rights of those appearing before him and his other officials within his courts, as well as the rights of those who can not or choose not to be in his Courtrooms but wish to know how the courts and the other court officers are performing and want to keep an eye on what the Judges are doing as the NH Laws and Constitution affords is the right of the people, there is questions of this judges ability to properly conduct himself in the Courtroom and there are questions about his ability to properly oversee other court business to the detriment of the people.
 
Intending to hide the Judges and their sins behind closed doors will not make those sins go away but instead will help strengthen the commitment and resolve of those who are fighting to change the inequities this system has brought upon the people and innocent children it continues to try to destroy.
 
The following Petition is one of but many already presented to the NH Redress Committee. One example of the controversy surrounding the NH Judiciary and the People they are entrusted to serve in a fair, equitable and lawful manner.
 
Ed Kelly asks, where does this end? It ends when the courts and the courts officers make fair and impartial rulings based on the laws and the constitution and not based how much money can be made by those involved with the courts. It ends when stories like the following story no longer exist.
 
NH: Legislature Holds Impeachment Proceedings for Master in Family Court  
May 27th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
 
The following was contributed by Fathers and Families Reader, David D. Vandenberg.
 
Anyone who has been forced to deal with the Alice-in-Wonderland procedures of family courts knows that one enters a totally different world than what we expect American jurisprudence is to be. One federal appellate judge, after reviewing a case in New Hampshire family court stated, “This must be what courts in Bolivia do.”
 
But it appears that at least one group, the New Hampshire General Court, or legislature, is taking real steps to end the abuse of families in family court. They are impeaching judges and marital masters, who have failed to comply with state and federal statutes and ignored constitutional protections.
 
Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides for the Accountability of Magistrates and Officers. To that end, the legislature, instituted a procedure for the Redress of Grievances. About 150 years ago, this committee was retired, until now.
 
In November 2010, a supermajority of constitutional Republicans was swept into office by popular discontent with the lawlessness and arrogance of state officers violating the rights of citizens. And where better to begin, but in a venue in which certain rights were summarily suspended decades ago: family court?
 
However, even before hearings of the Committee for Redress of Grievances began, opponents came forward with calls to disband the committee, claiming that the family courts were just fine. The Manchester Union-Leader, the Concord Monitor, and the Nashua Telegraph published editorials to disband the committee.
 
Still, supporters of the committee point out that the Judicial Branch has no independent oversight provision by the people and few complaints to the Judicial Conduct Committee have ever been successful. As one legislator put it, the General Court has a responsibility to ensure proper procedures are in place in the form of laws and that state magistrates and officers comply with law. If the magistrates fail to follow the law, then the will of the people, as expressed through the legislature, will be corrupted, as is now the case in New Hampshire family court.
 
David Johnson says his daughter was removed from him almost completely–he can see her in supervised visits only–contrary to independent assessments of the mother’s abuse. Mr. Johnson provides the following narrative of his last ten years in family court:
 
The child’s primary care physician testified twice about the mother’s abuses and neglect. In addition, the child’s psychologist testified that the father should be the primary custodial parent, because of mental cruelty endured by the child, being coached by the mother to make false statements about the father. The child’s physician also testified on behalf of the father. The mother told the court she left the child and her young cousin in a vehicle with the keys in the ignition with a loaded revolver in the unlocked console.
 
Parenting time was divided fifty/fifty, the father voluntarily paid for private school and after-school care, and supported the mother after the separation, including all the expenses of the home, yet he was ordered to pay so much spousal and child support that he could no longer afford his own home for himself and his daughter.
 
Within 24 hours of the father’s motion for primary parenting authority, the mother counterclaimed alleging the father’s sexual abuse of the daughter. Twenty-four hours after that the mother made the same false allegations to the police and was ignored. At the next hearing, the physician and psychologist testified a third time and reported still more abuses by the mother. The court ordered primary parenting responsibility for the father, yet ordered him to pay child support, contrary to federal law.
 
The court appointed a new marital master, Phillip Cross, who is now the subject of impeachment. Mr. Cross started to incrementally take parenting time away from the father, violating his right to due process each time in preliminary hearings.
 
At the final evidentiary hearing, the father still retained primary parenting authority, yet was unlawfully ordered to increase his child support requirement. Medical authority was granted to the mother, even though she had refused to provide prescribed medication. Mr. Cross refused reports from the child protection agency and human services with additional abuses of the mother.
 
Mr. Cross held a criminal contempt hearing against the father, hearings for which a marital master has no authority and in which the father was denied a criminal defense. Mr. Cross later termed the hearing a civil contempt hearing. Yet the father had primary custody of the daughter, not the mother. The father was convicted and jailed for nearly ten weeks, resulting in the loss of his second home, most of the father’s and daughter’s personal belongings, and the transfer of the daughter to the abusive mother.
 
New Hampshire family courts are filled with such cases, which the judiciary has misruled on. The New Hampshire newspapers have come out specifically against hearings in this case, after these facts were made public. Marital Master Cross may provide testimony about this matter, or the judiciary may send counsel to the supreme court to represent Mr. Cross. Who arrives for testimony remains to be seen.
 
The chair of the committee, Paul Ingbretson, is Mr. Johnson’s representative and neighbor and apparently drove Mr. Johnson, who became homeless, to visit his daughter. Critics cite the driving of David Johnson, paying for lunch, and sitting with the father and daughter as indicative of Mr. Ingbretson’s loss of objectivity, requiring the entire committee to be shut down. Speaker of the House, William O’Brien, and other attorneys have reviewed the matter and determined no conflict of interest exists. Still, Mr. Ingbretson has recused himself from this one case. Yet, the calls for disbanding are still coming.
 
More cases are in the pipeline and will be reviewed by the committee. While newspaper editors have come out against these hearings, the people of New Hampshire, through their legislators, expressed their serious concern about the inexplicable and lawless behavior of many judges and marital masters.
 
These hearings will go forward and cases like David Johnson’s and others will be given a public airing, so that the people will know just exactly what kind of judiciary they have, whether it’s up to the standards we expect in the US, or whether it is more like what one expects in a Bolivian court of law.

See link:

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=16107
 
And from the opposition, Judge Edwin Kelly and his commentary follow. Mr. Kelly, a court officer who wants to continue with business as usual and continue keeping the public in the dark by disbanding the NH Redress of Grievance Committee, an illogical argument for NO OVERSIGHT in the Judiciary.
 
With all due respect, this wouldn’t be an issue if the facts weren’t true that time and again, it’s the Courts that have crossed the line. There needs to be accountability and transparency within our legal system. At this time that does not exist. There is a documentable, repeated history of bias and disregard coming from the NH Courts.
 
It’s not until 2/3’s through Mr. Kelly’s commentary that he finally acknowledges that he is one of the Judges against whom the Petition was filed.
 
A vested interest in the outcome? Would that cloud his judgment and cause a reaction to the Redress Committee that is less than impartial, such that it should be disbanded as he writes in his commentary?
 
A reason to undermine the process of the people? Make the illogical argument that there is recourse for bad decisions in the appellate system? For instance, a trip to Supreme Court that is out of the reach for far too many, due to the sheer cost it takes to pay an attorney to get you there? It’s not a valid argument for desiring closed courts with no oversight.
 
Mr. Kelly would like all to believe this illogical argument is sufficient enough oversight of a corrupt judicial system. Mr. Kelly would like all to believe that the wolfs watching the sheep, do so with the sheep’s best interest at heart.
 
Instead, Kelly's argument points precisely to the need of the Redress of Grievance Committee and points precisely to why the people are demanding the courts to get it's act together, make it's decisions right the first time or be subjected to scrutiny and oversight if they are not capable of handling the power that has been entrusted to them. 

I pose these questions to Mr. Kelly……If the system is as fair and impartial as you purport, why would you or any of the courts officers be so opposed to the idea of transparency?

Why would you assert that somehow the parties have to accept the final judgment of the courts, when clearly you acknowledge that there is an appeals process that some never get to? An appeals process that could right wrongs for those forced to walk away due to a lack of money for lawyers.

The appeals process is available only to those that can afford it. Lacking the expertise to go Pro Se affords no viable option to those without it.

Mr. Kelly why would you so arrogantly suggest that those affected by bad decisions should just accept them and walk away?

Why would you so arrogantly suggest that accepting a wrong is right?

And is it a mockery of the system to question those in authority who have a motive and wish to hinder transparency and oversight?

Or is the mockery made by those that hinder transparency and oversight because they believe they are better than the rest of us?

And will the Judges and Marital Masters that go before the committee require that rules of evidence and the laws be applied in their defense of allegations made against them, which is a right not afforded to all who go before them?

Or is that the double standard?

Or will the ultimate decisions on whether to impeach or not be based on who tells the best story? The most convincing story, has the most witnesses, as is in the same tone they use in their own courts when making their decisions.

Are the scales going to be balanced? Or will they require the panel take seriously their evidence, likely to be in the form of documents, testimony and other evidence as they present it, so that fair and impartial decisions will be made?

Kelly fought hard and testified before the NH Senate in his efforts to squash HB259, a bill eventually killed by the Senate.

HB259 was a bill that would have made it a law in NH Family Courts to include that Rules of Evidence be followed uniformly by the judicial branch family division based on the New Hampshire rules of evidence for other courts in the state.

At this time NO Rules of Evidence apply in Family Courts.

Can Mr. Kelly be considered impartial in this discussion? Or is he trying hard to keep from the public what really goes on in his courts and what only those that have seen it first hand know of?

In answer to Mr. Kelly’s question “When does this stop?” It stops when the courts act in a fair and impartial manner to all who go before it and not until then.

In conclusion, if you have been wronged by ANY of the NH Courts Report It and Petition the House Redress Committee.

Judge Edwin W. Kelly his commentary and his argument and motivation to keep in check, the Status Quo:

Sunday, June 5, 2011 – Nashua Telegraph

See link for article:

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinionperspectives/921760-263/redress-panel-threatens-autonomy-of-three-branches.html

Redress panel threatens autonomy of three branches

By EDWIN W. KELLY
Guest Commentary
 
Our constitution requires that judges be "as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit." It also provides for three separate branches of government that are as independent of each other "as is consistent with the chain of connection that binds the whole fabric of the constitution in one indissoluble bond of union and amity."
 
Curious 18th-century phrases? Or pithy prescriptions for a healthy democracy?
 
I choose to believe the latter.
 
The founders called for neither a system of justice where judges were expected to be above the people or perfect in their decisions. Rather, they called for judges who reflected the people, judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit.
 
And recognizing that judges will err, our founders also established the mechanics of judicial review or, in modern parlance, an appellate system.
 
As for the relationship between and among the branches of government, our state constitution clearly stated that the executive, legislative and judicial branches function as a single unit, but retain strict independence from one another in those areas of government given exclusively to each.
 
From time to time, the natural tension among the branches, (also anticipated by our founders) can increase to the point where it threatens the delicate balance so necessary to our democratic form of government.
 
In my opinion, the newly created House Committee on Redress of Grievances has begun to move dangerously close to that imbalance. The committee has the exclusive authority to determine if any petition brought by a member of the House of Representatives will receive a public hearing.
 
Petition 5 seeks, on behalf of a litigant in a long-standing divorce matter, to override a court parenting order and return custody of the litigant's child to the petitioner through legislation; legislatively remove the court-appointed guardian; remove from office three sitting judges and two marital masters who had some involvement in the case, and order those judges to pay triple damages to the litigant for his losses, including child support arrearages and attorney's fees.
 
In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of the judicial officers against whom this petition is filed.
 
After approving the petition for a public hearing and chairing the first day of hearing, the committee chairman, Rep. Paul Ingbretson, of Pike, announced to the committee that he thought he may have a conflict because he has served for an extended period of time as the supervisor of court-ordered child visitation for the litigant at the litigant's request.
 
The judicial branch also reminded Ingbretson of a letter he had written to me almost two years ago in which he stated that he had listened "at great length to (the litigant) and other knowledgeable witnesses" and had "read extensively the documents pertaining to his case" and had, as of September 2009, formed a conclusion about what he saw as "obvious failures to act in the best interest of the child."
 
Ingbretson finally agreed to step down in that case. But the proceedings on Petition 5 will continue, even though this litigant has had, at his request, a number of judges and masters removed from his case; hearings before at least four different family division judges, two family division marital masters, and a superior court judge, and has filed an appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, resulting in a decision against his position.
 
When does this stop?
 
The committee, which is scheduled to hold its next meeting in Concord on June 9, also has before it two petitions in which Rep. Peter Silva, of Nashua, says the committee should consider impeachment proceedings against a Nashua judge for rulings he made in two cases involving children.
 
Like Petition 5, any review of these rulings should be conducted at the New Hampshire Supreme Court, not, I would submit, in a legislative committee room.
 
Our system of justice was not designed to allow those people who bring cases to the courts for resolution to continue these matters ad infinitum. At some point in time, the parties have to accept the final judgment of the courts. To do otherwise makes a mockery of the constitutional responsibilities and authority of the courts and the clearly stated constitutional demand that the branches operate independent from one another in issues given to their exclusive authority.
 
A process established by the Legislature that allows a case such as this to be brought to hearing by a clearly conflicted chairman, seeking legislative action to overturn valid court orders and make judges pay damages to a party who feels aggrieved, not only threatens the delicate balance between the branches, it completely upends it.
 
Judge Edwin W. Kelly is the administrative judge of the District Court and Family Division in New Hampshire.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Cheshire County Judge John P Arnold announces his retirement

The following article from the Keene Sentinel, reports Superior Court Judge John P Arnold has announced that he is retiring from his bench in short order.

Lots of information has been swirling about in the media lately, with bits and pieces filtering out to the public and letting us know that there are many problems embed in the judicial system in the State of NH.

Some of that information swirls around the Cheshire County Superior Court. Is it possible that his retirement could have anything to do with some of that?

Such as the activity at the NH Redress Committee and some of the contentious judicial decisions around the State and in Cheshire County that are coming under scrutiny for the first time? Judicial decisions some of which were made under the watch of Arnold.

Judicial decisions reported by those having been dealt first hand blows by a judicial system, whose Judges and Marital Master’s all too often prefer to violate individual constitutional rights and the law in favor of rubber-stamping documents and rubber-stamping lives?

Decisions that have sent some to researching the laws and pounding the keyboard, sending petitions to the NH Redress Committee with the purpose of changing a system that is broke down? People who are fed up with a system that promotes the status quo and are willing to speak out against it?

Could these be reasons?

See link for the Petitions to the NH House for Petitions: http://www.timothyhorrigan.com/documents/2011.house-petitions.html 

Dr. David D. Vandenberg is one such person and his case is heard in Cheshire County Superior Court and his 1st Petition to the Redress Committee was accepted May 10, 2011. These bad judicial decisions have promised nothing but increases in Redress Petitions in the future and increased scrutiny those judicial decisions will be forced to bear.

And excerpts from the meeting minutes at which his Petition was accepted:

“Rep. Jeffrey Oligny appeared next (on behalf of Dr. David D. Vandenberg) with a grievance against a Superior Court justice allowing a guardian ad litem to move the court, failing to provide due process or findings of harm, and other complaints related to this case. Rep. Tucker asked what the proposed remedy would be. Rep. Oligny responded that there should be an investigation and then appropriate action to instruct the Attorney General to prosecute the guardian ad litem, for kidnapping, remove the guardian ad litem, and amend the statutes. Rep. Mirski asked if redress could find its own remedy, and Rep. Oligny responded that it could. Rep. Mirski moved to accept the petition, seconded by Rep. Tucker. Chairman O'Brien said that people lose cases every day, but there are increasing numbers of allegations of misconduct and lack of due process. We need to look into these cases. Rep. Oligny added that we need to separate being unhappy with an outcome or being denied due process. The committee then voted 7-2 to accept the petition.”

For full text see link: http://www.timothyhorrigan.com/documents/house-rules.110510.html

Then there was the Thomas Ball self-immolation that brought close to home, in a startling manner, yet another example of a court system that doesn’t function as it’s intended use, but instead treats individuals more like state owned property to discard at will when no longer useful for the initial intended purpose.

Thomas Ball’s self-immolation occurred in front of the Cheshire County Superior Court House, just a few months ago, his case heard and held at Cheshire County Superior Court over the course of years. John P Arnold, presiding justice of Cheshire County Superior Court during this time.

Thomas Ball making the final statement - "Done being bullied by the legal system for being a man". No reason to disbelieve him. Lots to show he was onto something. Maybe this has something to do with Arnolds decision to retire?

Then there is the ban on cameras at the courthouse and on the heels of that decision to ban cameras and devices with video recording capabilities from Keene's Court buildings, Arnold announces his retirement.

Maybe Arnold's decision to retire is the scrutiny he is sure to come under for his part in enacting this order. Come on now, pleeeease, no more audio and/or video gets back to the public, audio and video that forces these people to explain their actions and justify their salary? To be accountable for their actions and their words and so the public doesn't get to see what their tax dollars pay for or don’t pay for?

Here is an excerpt from the order:

"This Order is meant to apply to the facts and circumstances at the district division of the 8th Circuit in Keene. In recent months certain members of the public have caused disruptions of the court’s ability to conduct business in Keene. In addition to their refusal to abide by court rules related to the conduct of trials and conduct in the courtroom in general, these members of the public have also congregated in the court’s lobby for extended periods of time making it difficult for other members of the public to conduct business with the court and, in particular, creating conditions and disturbances which have obstructed court staff from performing their duties in an orderly way. Additionally, these members of the public have, on occasion, accosted the presiding judge as he enters and leaves the building in which the court is housed, creating an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation and a legitimate fear for the safety and well-being of the judicial and nonjudicial staff at this court."

“…it is the duty and responsibility of courts to be alert to protect the judicial processes from being brought into disrepute and to act vigorously when confronted with acts or conduct which tend to obstruct or interfere with the due and orderly administration of justice…” it is ordered as follows:

"No cameras or audio equipment may be used at any time in the court’s lobby or anywhere in the public area of the court’s leased premises; ….. "

See link for full text of Administrative Order: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/circuitcourt/adminorders/AdministrativeOrderCircuitCourt-2011-03.pdf

Watch the following videos for possible insight and motivation on a ban of video cameras in the Cheshire County Courts.

Watch Youtube and Talley.TV links to see why it’s important to get rid of this order sooner rather than later.

Watch Youtube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5TCnMnCwVY

And watch and hear how Ed Burke, Judge in Keene District Court gets angry in court when someone doesn't sit fast enough for him. You be the judge was it a situation of someone being disrespectful or someone confused as to whether they should sit or whether they should stand because their name was called? What would you have done? What would you have felt like if a judge started screaming at you and threatening you under the same circumstances? Would you have thought the judge was right? Would you have just said well I guess I did not understand but it’s OK that he was mad? I think, most likely not. Aren’t there rules of conduct for judges defining proper judicial demeanor? Actually, Arnold refers to that very thing in one of the links below.

And then there is this video, again with Burke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vfle5NEPo58

Watch and hear, start to finish, as Ed Burke, again a Judge in Keene District Court, misuses his power by lying to bailiff's and has someone arrested for criminal threatening. The charges based on Burke's own lies of events that he said just occurred. The video shows that the events didn't transpire in the manner in which he relayed to the bailiff's, nor was there a threat, let alone a criminal threat. How can that be? How can someone get arrested on a made up, trumped up lie by somone in power, just because they can and they don't like you? At worst, Burke should have kept his mouth shut and walked to his office silently, at best he could have been courteous and said it's not up for discussion. To lie and get caught on the video in a lie, well it makes you wonder what the real motivation is for banning the ability to record, now doesn’t it?

Then we have Arnold videos: http://talley.tv/judge-arnold-enforces-decorum-strongly-threatens-talley-tv-and-causes-disruption-of-court-proceedings/

It will certainly be interesting to see how that order CO-EXISTS with the US Court of Appeals recent ruling on citizen’s rights to film their government in action.

It will be interesting to see how the Redress Committee handles that Petition. Violation of State laws and the publics Right to Know as well as Freedom of Speech. Out os control? Or protection for those in the wrong.

Speaking of which, maybe it’s the recent ruling from the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. No. 10-1764, just a few weeks:

"...though not unqualified, a citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment." First Circuit Court of Appeals. [Source See 1st District US Court of Appeals - 10-1764 Sect: II,A,2]

Finally, a clear-cut ruling, that states it's  OK to record and videotape government officials, including law enforcement while they are performing their duties as servants of the taxpayers, without fear of retribution or having their equipment taken away illegally. Yes that is right, they are there to serve the public's needs, not their own. Imagine, what a concept.

Then again, maybe none of the above has anything to do with Arnold’s retirement. Maybe it has to do with the NH Supreme Court’s decision, less than a year ago, where Arnold was challenged for violating both the State and Federal Constitution when an individual was convicted, in his courtroom, of Two Felony Charges that were essentially the same charge, Arnold violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of BOTH Constitutions, that done after it had been brought to his attention prior to the trial. Surely, Arnold knows of Constitutional Rights, doesn't he? Or does he?

Time and again we are taught not to question authority. These are the reasons why we should.

From the NH Supreme Court decision:

"Before trial, the defendant moved to dismiss these charges on the ground that to prosecute him for both violated his right to be shielded from multiple punishments for the same offense under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions."

"In sum, we hold that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the State Constitution for the defendant to have received punishments for both …….."

For full text see link: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2010/2010107farr.pdf

Or, maybe it’s none of any this so called nonsense, which is what SOME would like ALL of us to buy into and believe.

Maybe none of these reflection’s are relevant and maybe it’s just coincidence and maybe Arnold just happened think that this was just a really great time for him to sit back, collect his pension, relax and reminisce on his career.

We may never know, but we’d like to think it’s the scrutiny that helped to make the decision, in any case, we thank all who continue to participate in fighting for what is right and just.

And here’s the Sentinel article:

Posted: Friday, September 9, 2011 4:04 pm
Cheshire County judge announces retirement Copyright 2011 The Keene Sentinel SentinelSource.com

Longtime Cheshire County Superior Court Judge John P. Arnold has announced his plan to retire. A news release from court officials follows:

CONCORD, September 9, 2011 -Superior Court Judge John P. Arnold, the presiding judge in Cheshire County, is retiring in November after more than 18 years on the bench. Following his retirement, he will be available to sit as needed as a senior status judge.

Judge Arnold was nominated to the court in November 1992 by then Gov. Judd Gregg and began his service on the court in January 1993. Before joining the court, Judge Arnold served for four years as New Hampshire Attorney General.

"It has been an honor for me to serve the people of New Hampshire , as attorney general, and as a Superior Court judge," Judge Arnold said. "I want to thank my colleagues, the attorneys who appeared in front of me, and especially the court staff who gave me their support over all these years. I look forward to a continuing association with the Superior Court, as a senior status judge, if my help is needed," he said.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Linda Stewart Dalianis described Judge Arnold as an "excellent trial judge who will be sorely missed" at both the Cheshire County Superior Court in Keene, and nearby at the Sullivan County Superior Court in Newport, where he has regularly presided at court proceedings over the years.

"I have known Judge Arnold since the days when we were growing up in the Peterborough area," the Chief Justice said. " I have great personal and professional regard for him and I hope he will give us as much time as he can as a senior status judge."

By executive order, a Judicial Selection Commission interviews applicants for judgeships and then sends recommendations to the governor for consideration. The Governor's appointments to the court are subject to confirmation by the Executive Council, after a public hearing.

http://sentinelsource.com/news/local/cheshire-county-judge-announces-retirement/article_7b7546a0-db1f-11e0-9397-001cc4c002e0.html

accutane