NH AG’s Office, Delaney & Tracy covering up SECRET CASH TRANSACTION between Chief of Police Gary Phillips & Subordinate Officer Eric Ammann?

AG’s office helps cover up one Public Official giving another Public Official money in exchange for favors? A BRIBE?

It was reported to the AG’s office, Gary Phillips, Chief gave Eric Ammann of NH State Police money from his own pocket in exchange for Ammann to come work for him full time.

Why is the AG’s office doing nothing about our corrupt NH Cops?

An investigation? Or a cover up?

Does the AG’s Office put the community and the general public at risk by ignoring reports about corrupt practices of our public officials?

A seasoned law enforcement official and criminal investigator for the NH Attorney General’s Office, Richard (Dick) Tracy, gives a wishy-washy explanation about Phillips lame-ass excuse for how Eric Ammann came to have this extra money in exchange for coming to the WPD full time.

Tracy reports, Phillips begged Ammann to come work for him at the WPD and he gave Ammann a personal check, drawn on his own personal account in exchange for doing so.

Phillips admits to Tracy it was $2,000.

Instead of asking Phillips how Ammann got the money, who gave him the money and who wrote the check he did nothing to find out exactly where the money came from, Tracy blows over that little detail.

Something to hide?

Instead of asking for a copy of the check – an easy way to figure out where the money came from, he didn’t bother.

According to Tracy, he drove 1 ½ to 2 hours to go all the way to Winchester for a face to face interview with Phillips and according to his report, couldn’t get an answer to the question – WAS the payout part of salary or did it come from Phillips himself?

Makes no sense does it? Why bother wasting the taxpayer’s money if you don’t want to look in the cave after you spend your time and gas money driving to it?

Tracy, you could have stayed in Concord and summoned Phillips up there for all the nothing you accomplished.

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?

Phillips admitted giving Ammann money, Ammann has said he got a check from Phillips personal account 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.

Hmmmmmmmm. If it smells like a bribe???? What else can you call it? Read the RSA on Corruption and Bribes. See copy of document.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3GYEy-jYBVyh9JvH_oAYdxVYrHfri6me841n6rwCT0pb4QcnL5GdGbnKKIQfwPZqlDt1CVkSTwF7k6e7LvemLwaAYo5RcI4yfhBJ0ow3jl6qZseCXYQ54rq3fS1A3s-DOhWeazsKXBkxQ/s1600/RSA.jpg

From Tracy’s report: “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.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2e9vogdF3H_IAUMNNdDpMWj0_98uDErftPUyB5WmdOuAVJJWVZKksptjQzMSLqihhOEnb5bX9G6-_oqtdFoP0z7VfEuu2MHNs5BCUYoNKDA_szVuL90Mx3BVGHXp96BtuetmjhhjgAy0W/s1600/AGR.jpg

Phillips tells him: “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.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih9q5Rm0hyV94FnCEmDaLwYsNiGzK89idelOs7BTXt2HsOniv8hszZJ8EouOZc7RVVlGZguSmQaPkJSQs8FF_Q2lHdI0KSV2BsW5ci79-IAnFDzmxfQNLtcD2CoVhY5hb12fsmMxtIaDti/s1600/AGP.jpg

Tracy’s 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.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEubZ5zDeocQjh0kZ4qMVr7agXQnGn8i8Fz56LkYFSRLd6qALWcGer92evbCZK3UdeEy4UjxeSMl3PeEp__lX9UtIYeVIv0wi9kZIfdP9qkIkgxlLnB4_bxBgwz8UhNk1uJvFiYtG_4gi0/s1600/AGS.jpg

The benefit to Phillips, in case Tracy missed some training classes on the way up to Concord, is that Phillips gets to keep his job and doesn’t get booted out on his ass.

What more did Tracy need? Phillips admits offering Ammann $2,000 and instead Tracy PLAYS WITH his OWN WORDS, figuring people won’t or are too stupid to catch on, “Philips offered Eric $2,000 bonus to offset the loss” and that “Eric would accept the Chief’s offer”.

He offered the money, Ammann accepted the pay off and started working fulltime for Phillips.

Headlines the AG's is afraid of. Extra, Extra, Read all about it.............  

“Chief of Police gives 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,

“By-passes the Town approved budgets for police officers salaries by admitting to propping up the salary of one of them by going outside the scope of how employees at the Town of Winchester are paid!”

Is that what the AG’s office is afraid of? Afraid of the headlines that don’t make them look good?

Phillips and his cronies need to be reminded of who pays their salaries.

Was this exchange of money reported to the Internal Revenue Service and State of NH, so that the proper amount of taxes and pension were paid?

What about a 1099? Did Phillips provide Ammann with a 1099?

Why can’t NH citizens get the AG's to do a proper investigations of our elected and appointed official’s misdeeds? Has the NH AG’s office and Delaney turned it’s back on all of NH or just 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?

The AG’s office could have and should have applied for search warrants of both Phillips and Ammann’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? They have the power.

The AG’s office, Delaney, Tracy et al, can’t keep standing behind the wall and saying there is no evidence any crimes being committed by our NH Police Force when they refuse to get the evidence that exists that proves crimes are committed.

When Tracy got to Winchester he knew that Phillips and Roberts were being investigated for bank fraud. Couldn’t he put 2 and 2 together?

Isn’t presenting fake documents 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?

I don't recall seeing a PS at the end of the NH Criminal Statute with a bunch of but if's or because this or because that.

It doesn't matter anyway, the AG’s office find them in violation. And since they were in violation of the by-laws, why weren’t they found to be in violation of the criminal laws?

Let’s see – bet the AG’s said we’ll just tell ‘em we just don’t think it wasn’t intentional, then we don’t have to do anything, we can close the case.

Or maybe they said that they’re just a little confused about the laws and didn’t realize that they had to follow the laws too, they thought the laws .

Another get out of jail free card? Why did the AG’s office let them off the hook on that one? 

Were they looking the other way and pretending none of it ever 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?

Tracy didn’t follow through on information he was given and that information, was information that he could have easily substantiated what Phillips did was WRONG and ILLEGAL. 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.

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?

Emails from the Town show the money didn’t come in a payroll check. Tracy should have done his job and asked this one simple questions from Town Hall.

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.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw9ejw13jMcwt4Di66bjQnERGhEZN9SpMc9qXEMHe5kYMQWzoNOXar7gJP_fVMRHBkMecEJfHB6dcmRagPqE_eDYMkXmLX7_JTMtvCRILCpDkQpKK9D0um3RwBcnLXM8bqz4w8g4sI3Wss/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 personnel 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.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBCRG6gZDbZ0WnJcnn9KSlJ8Hq0GhOK3bW7OcxJqwMjqGzhGXZvJvx1X1wQkyMEsBiOW7oGj1SzWv6hC0s2oYzB2oot27iLXXwNon3jtHlOMzhhUVofAh-Bu1DvfQZNHG7No8yvAgQBOqs/s1600/email3.jpg

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.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs7I_YWqizq-7f07MPWXkNnTrqR0IaatLXPswSrGf0EvbRFy9nqH9UO5JsE4DjY5UkaE7Iw_PuglxFkb3b9fKPeksEuFrBiB7u3z38aI4FtqZYhb1lIWrdzqp7iHHloKAzSwizMC3ObSjb/s1600/email7.jpg

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 personnel 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.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnM1A39sgoYNyQ45iG505dgcXL-u11hPRGCkmTnQjb_l8bedfYGh8HFAWcQG1Ryk1eDxKFaWOHguJ8FA4-je1OdQqMUySYFV3yM9g3pJVT07KbeWZ0heKxvAk1PxdzdZxsMB2AjkRbkylC/s1600/email8.jpg

In a response back to Morel in an email dated 11/10/10 which 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.”

The 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 of three (3) pages copied is $1.50. Please remit that amount to the Town, and copies will be provided to you”.

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 Ammann 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.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3GSGpSCr2k5GtqpzE4MLTOQBDcNriMPLM_1gM7eQMyo0iKVweBoMDa_PB7OYb7IwDmnL3JOtPJn-xQkaLiEspbyo0Y4BUL5kYevvHVY3BBzAC7SAzRpXBxhhyK3stliV5h1zmZGMNZD5_/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.”

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, offered 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 when they 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.

Phillips is of questionable character.

He has the propensity (tendency, inclination) to be a liar. So much so that anything he does say is questionable.

Moammar Phillips?

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,…or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, …
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. .. 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.
(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 pretty well confirms that 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 is a cash bribe?

But one has to guess the Prosecutors decided not to prosecute, how convenient for all. And yeah, it's true, they don't like it when people get in their faces about it.

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 even Phillips and Tracy hope you don’t understand, 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.

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.

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