All CRIMINAL NH JUDGES ARE ABOVE THE LAW AND NEVER WENT BEFORE A COURT OF LAW WITH TAXPAYERS AS JURORS!

NH Judge Paul Moore making $162,200 per year off of taxpayers while destroying thousands of families for decades, walks free! 

FRAUD COULD OF COST TAXPAYERS
$1 MILLION+
_______________________________

On February 15, 2018, Governor Chris Sununu said in his state of the state address:

"Simply put, "Life in New Hampshire is better today than it was one year ago – and that's no accident."

"Today in New Hampshire, the rights of crime victims are stronger than ever before." 

"As we look back on this past year and recognize our milestones and achievements, we cannot lose sight of New Hampshire's future."

________________________________________
Ex-Nashua Judge Paul Moore Pleads Guilty, Avoids Jail; fraud Could have Cost Taxpayers 1 million Plus

By Mark Hayward

Union Leader
MAY 3, 2018

Paul Moore, seated in center at hearing

CONCORD — Placed on leave over concerns he submitted fake evaluations of his own performance, Circuit Court Judge Paul Moore told another lie — this one that chronic pain, anxiety, depression and traumatic stress prevented him from being a judge and he should start receiving a disability pension, a prosecutor disclosed Wednesday.Moore appeared in Merrimack County Superior Court on Wednesday and admitted to the fraud. It was yet another blow to a popular Nashua judge who was a former U.S. Army Ranger and founded MooreMart, a nonprofit organization that has shipped more than 100,000 care packages to troops deployed overseas.

Moore had already resigned his judgeship, which he gave up after authorities became suspicious of perfect scores on job evaluations supposedly submitted by lawyers and the public last summer. In the weeks ahead, Moore is likely to be disbarred.

On Wednesday, Moore was fined $4,000, must repay $3,900 to the Judicial Retirement System and received a suspended jail sentence.“He is no longer a judge. He no longer will receive retirement benefits. He walks out of this courtroom not a judge, but a felon,” said Associate Attorney General Jane Young.

“Today, the court sentenced a fundamentally good man who has done amazing things for the state. Paul Moore made mistakes and he came to court today to accept responsibility for those mistakes,” said his lawyer, former attorney general Michael Delaney.

During the court hearing, Moore sat at the defense table and kept his chin high as Young laid out a case against him.

She cast doubts on evaluations submitted on his behalf in 2008, 2011 and 2014. The return rates were far higher than those of other judges, and the wording and frequent exclamation points were similar to his writing style, she said.

Moore also submitted the results of the 2017 evaluation in an application to be considered for a Supreme Court appointment.

When he was confronted with the evaluations and suspended from his job, Moore blamed his chronic pain, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. He told officials that when he filled out computer evaluations and gave himself high marks, his panic attacks subsided.

Young said Moore will not face any criminal charges as a result of the bogus evaluations submissions. He pleaded guilty to attempting to secure a disability pension. At 70 percent of his $162,200 salary, he would have received an annual payment of $113,400 in taxpayer dollars in retirement. That would end up being more than $1 million over the course of his lifetime, Young said.Moore cited the same physical and mental illnesses when he applied for disability, something that Young said led to the charge and guilty plea.“The state’s position at trial would have been no, he did not (suffer the ailments),” Young told reporters.

Delaney would not entertain questions from reporters. Moore used forearm crutches when he entered the courtroom, which he wielded deftly upon his departure, easily matching the stride of his lawyers.Moore’s application for disability benefits — made in January — claimed his health had been deteriorating for 15 months, Young said. But just nine months earlier, he had applied for consideration as a Supreme Court judge and made no mention of poor health.“It is essential that people who serve as judges can be trusted,” said Superior Court Judge John Kissinger, who signed off on the plea bargain. Most of his words to Moore were encouraging.

“Ultimately,” Kissinger said, “we’re not defined by the worst things we do, but all the things we do.”mhayward@unionleader.com
________________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: Judge John Broderick was aquitted October 11, 2000

                              NH JUDGE IMPEACHED                                                  

By ABC NEWS
The New Hampshire House today impeached state Supreme Court Justice David Brock for his alleged interference in a 1987 divorce case and voted to send his case to the Senate for a trial.

A Senate trial could result in Brock’s removal from the bench. The last time a New Hampshire Supreme Court justice was impeached was in 1790 when Woodbury Langdon was punished for poor attendance. Langdon resigned before his Senate trial. The final vote to impeach came after the House had given preliminary approval to three articles of impeachment, all by approximate 2-to-1 margins. 

During today’s seven-hour debate, GOP Rep. Albert Hamel said the House could restore the high court’s moral authority by voting for impeachment. “I hope that we have equal fortitude, guts, courage, to do what we have to do in this situation,” he said.

An Improper Phone Call

Brock is accused of making an improper call to a lower-court judge in 1987 about a politically connected lawsuit. He is also accused of lying under oath and soliciting comments from a fellow justice about that judge’s own divorce case and lying under oath during the investigation.  

“We are not asking you to find anyone guilty here. This is not a trial,” House Judiciary Chairman Henry Mock said in urging a “yes” vote.

Intentional Wrongdoing

The first article of impeachment alleged that Brock called the lower court judge to remind him that state Sen. Edward C. Dupont could help the court pass legislation, including a pay raise. Brock has denied making the call; the article faults him both for making it and for not telling his colleagues about it.

The other articles claimed:

Brock solicited comments in February from then-Justice Stephen Thayer about matters involving Thayer’s divorce case. Thayer resigned to avoid possible criminal prosecution.

Brock perjured himself four times before the committee. Critics contend this is the weakest article.

Brock said Monday he would consider resigning if he could do so with dignity, but only if the House doesn’t adopt the article accusing him of lying.

New London Republican Alf Jacobson, a Judiciary Committee member, is proposing a fourth impeachment article that Brock let disqualified justices take part in case deliberations. Opponents said Brock should not be punished for continuing a policy he did not create.

Retirement and Benefits

Lawmakers also must decide whether to give Brock full retirement benefits if he resigns. The Senate and governor would have to approve.

In public testimony last month, Brock apologized for his poor judgment, but said he meant no harm.

The House began investigating after Attorney General Philip McLaughlin accused Thayer of trying to influence his divorce.

During a meeting of the justices, Brock announced he was appointing two judges to a panel to hear Judith Thayer’s appeal. Believing Brock wanted his opinion, Thayer delivered a tirade against one of the judges.

McLaughlin said the incident was an outgrowth of the court’s routine practice of letting justices take part in discussions of cases from which they were disqualified.

Justices Sherman Horton and John Broderick, whom the committee voted to neither impeach nor reprimand, were accused of not immediately blowing the whistle on Thayer.

The committee said it was not pleased with the pair, but said months of publicity had damaged their reputations enough. Lawmakers said they trusted Broderick to work to reform the court, and noted that Horton is nearing mandatory retirement at age 70.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
"2000: New Hampshire Impeachment Proceedings Against Supreme Court Justices

Associate Justice W. Stephen Thayer, III

● Justice Thayer resigned before proceedings began.

Justice John T. Broderick, Jr.

● The House investigated but rejected articles of impeachment against
Justice Broderick.

Justice Sherman D. Horton, Jr.

● The House investigated but rejected articles of impeachment against
Justice Horton.

Chief Justice David A. Brock

● The House approved four articles of impeachment against chief Justice Brock: (1) overseeing a practice that allowed recused and disqualified justices to receive draft opinions, attend conferences on the cases, and comment and influence rulings; (2) discussing with Justice Thayer who would substitute on the appeal in Thayer's divorce case; (3) phoning a lower court judge to check the status of a case involving a company owned by the Senate majority leader and not informing his colleagues of it when the case came to the Supreme Court; and (4) lying to the House Judiciary Committee under oath when denying the call.
● The Senate did not convict "

NH TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING FINANCIALLY, MENTALLY, AND PHYSICALLY FOR FAMILY COURT'S CONTINUED SUPPORT OF CHILD ABUSE!

__________________________________________

On February 15, 2018, Governor Chris Sununu said in his state of the state address:

"Simply put, "Life in New Hampshire is better today than it was one year ago – and that's no accident."

"Today in New Hampshire, the rights of crime victims are stronger than ever before." 

"As we look back on this past year and recognize our milestones and achievements, we cannot lose sight of New Hampshire's future."

___________________________________________________STATE PAYS ABUSED GIRLS, ADOPTIVE PARENTS 6.75 MILLION TO SETTLE SUIT INVOLVING DCYF

BY Mark Hayward

Union Leader

MANCHESTER — The state will pay $6.75 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the grandparents of , Youth and Families, state Attorney General Gordon MacDonald said Thursday.two girls who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of their parents while the family was under supervision of the Division of Children

The settlement ends a four-year legal saga in which the grandparents, who have since adopted the girls, fought to sue the state and two non-profit agencies — Easterseals New Hampshire and CASA of New Hampshire — in open court.

Their settlements with Easterseals and CASA have been sealed and parties on both sides would not discuss them.

“It was a very, very troubling set of facts, as extreme as I have seen in the context of childhood sexual abuse,” said MacDonald after the hearing.

MacDonald made a rare court appearance in Hillsborough Counth Superior Court-North to settle lingering issues over the settlement.

Once Superior Court Judge Gillian Abramson approves it, the state will immediately release the money, MacDonald said.

The money will come out of the state general fund and does not need Executive Council approval, he said.

Abramson did not issue a ruling from the bench Thursday morning but promised to do so soon.

The court hearing featured teams of lawyers for the grandparents, the state and the two agencies. It also was the first time that the grandparents — identified as T.C. and D.C. — appeared at a hearing.

They are identified by their initials to guard the privacy of the victims.The girls, now 8 and 5 years old, are “really not doing well,” said the grandfather, T.C. They attend a public school, but both are in counseling and will need out-of-state treament once the settlement is approved, he said.

The younger was under 2 years old at the time of the abuse and is doing better than her sister.

“The oldest is the one that remembers everything. She’s the one who (disclosed the abuse). She’s a mess. She needs serious counseling and we can’t get it until this is settled,” he said.

Under terms of the settlement, each child will receive $3.125 million from the state and the adoptive parents will receive $500,000.

The attorney who brought the case, Rus Rilee, said that trusts have been established for the girls, and the adoptive parents expect they will be set for the rest of their life financially and have money to bequeath to children.

From the start of the ordeal, T.C. and D.C. wanted the case brought to highlight DCYF accountability, Rilee said. Because of court rulings in the case, others will be able to file court cases in public to challenge missteps by DCYF, and that will make case workers second guess their decisions, he said.

“I hope the system’s gotten better. I hope we made some changes,” he said.

Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards said no one at DCYF lost their job because of what happened to the girls.“It was the parents that abused these children,” Edwards said. “They had rights under court orders to be able to proceed with unsupervised or partially supervised visits, and those rights were met by DCYF.”

When a supervisor was not on-site, the children were repeatedly assaulted, she said.

The issue during a court hearing was attorney fees. Rilee and his team want to exceed a 25 percent limit spelled out in state law and court rules for settlements involving children.

D.C. and T.C. both said they agreed to a higher portion — the percentage was not disclosed — and urged MacDonald to stop fighting it.

“I would love to have you guys come to my home and see how my 8-year-old acts. Just come,” T.C. said.

MacDonald said state law requires him to challenge the higher percentage.

mhayward@unionleader.com
__________________________________________________________________________________

N.H. Judge Rules Against DCYF

By Allie Morris
Concord Monitor
April 2017

A New Hampshire Superior Court judge has sided with a family suing the state child protection agency in a ruling that could pave the way to making confidential abuse and neglect records open to the public.

“The court finds defendants’ interests in maintaining confidentiality in this case is motivated purely by their own self-interest in minimizing public exposure of their alleged errors,” Judge Gillian Abramson wrote in an order released on Thursday.

The decision could shine a rare light on the inner workings of an agency that has been under scrutiny since two toddlers under its watch were killed. The lawsuit accuses Easter Seals and the Division for Children, Youth, and Families of failing to protect two young girls from “horrific” sexual abuse by their biological parents, despite repeated warning signs.

The court order allows the girls’ grandparents, now their adoptive parents, to waive confidentiality of state records related to the girls. Their attorney, Rus Rilee, said the next step is to file that motion.
Under state child protection laws, records from abuse and neglect investigations and proceedings must be kept in “books and files separate from all other court records” and must be withheld from “public inspection.” They are only accessible to a child’s grandparents or guardians with approval.  Rilee argued the laws shield the public from ever learning about problems within DCYF.

He said children’s identities can be protected even if the state’s documents are made public. While state attorneys argued the laws are needed to protect sensitive information about children, parents and foster families, Abramson came down in favor of disclosure.

“The court finds the children in this case — as well as all children in this State who may experience the misfortune of being involved in abuse and neglect proceedings — have a strong and legitimate interest in ensuring the proper functioning and public accountability of the entities responsible for their care,” Abramson wrote.

The 16-page document also added Court Appointed Special Advocates, known as CASA, as a defendant in the suit and denied the state’s request to dismiss the case. Rilee, who represents a number of families who plan to sue DCYF, including those of Sadence Willott and Brielle Gage — the two toddlers who died while under state watch — praised the ruling.

Every case we bring forward, on behalf of Sadee, Brielle, those cases are going to be litigated openly and publicly and the records associated with those cases are going to be eventually open for public consumption,” he said.

A spokeswoman for CASA said in a statement the ruling doesn’t mean the organization is liable. “CASA of New Hampshire intends to vigorously contest the plaintiffs’ allegations based on both the facts of the case and the state’s child protection laws,” Carolyn Cote said in a statement.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Lisa English said the state is still reviewing the recent order. We “will make a decision as to what actions we may take in the next several days,” she said.

In the lawsuit, filed in Hillsborough County Superior Court, the grandparents are seeking monetary damages and demanding a jury trial on several grounds. The family accuses DCYF, Easter Seals and CASA of negligence, negligent training and supervision of its employees, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The lawsuit alleges the groups disregarded concerns from the family and police about possible sexual abuse, which turned out to be founded. The girls’ mother and father pleaded guilty in 2014 to felonious sexual assault charges and to manufacturing child pornography. Each was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

The girls were 4 and 18 months old, respectively, at the time of the abuse detailed in the suit. It alleges the parents sexually abused their daughters during supervised and unsupervised visits in 2013, and that the mother filmed 14 of the incidents. Some of the abuse occurred during “bath time” with the parents, while an Easter Seals caseworker was in another room, according to the lawsuit.

Police recovered flash drives from the parents’ home that included those videos. In one, a child’s cry is muffled because her mouth is covered with duct tape.

The suit alleges DCYF allowed the parents to have unsupervised visits with their daughters, even after the Claremont Police Department began investigating reports months earlier that the couple had molested a young boy and girl at a homeless shelter where they were staying. Police contacted DCYF several weeks later about the allegations, but officials took no steps to follow up, the lawsuit claims.

“The defendants later justified their decision to allow unsupervised time with the biological parents, with DCYF telling both (the plaintiffs) and the investigating police officer that they had to give these parents ‘the opportunity to fail,’ ” the lawsuit says.
Rilee also is representing the paternal father of Brielle Gage, a 3-year-old Nashua girl killed by her mother in 2014. The father, William Boucher, has said he plans to sue DCYF over its handling of his daughter’s case. He wants the case heard in open court to try and bring change to the system.

NH JUDGE ALBEE IS NOT ALONE!  NH FAMILY COURT JUDGE SUSAN CARBON OPENLY SUPPORTS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, THEN PASSES THE BUCK, BLAMES LEGISLATORS AND THE LAWS FOR DOING SO!
___________________________________________________________

On February 15, 2018, Governor Chris Sununu said in his state of the state address:

"Simply put, "Life in New Hampshire is better today than it was one year ago – and that's no accident."

"Today in New Hampshire, the rights of crime victims are stronger than ever before." 

"As we look back on this past year and recognize our milestones and achievements, we cannot lose sight of New Hampshire's future."

______________________________________________________________

Mark Hayward's A City Matters: A Woman Feels Stuck In The Family Court System

By Mark Hayward

South Manchester resident Tamara Duhaime knows first hand about domestic violence and its aftermath in the city of Manchester.

Three years ago, she suffered a broken nose when the father of her fourth child — William Hodgkins, now 60 — backhanded her as they argued while he drove her to pick up her paycheck.

The blow and subsequent arrest introduced her to a court system that, nearly three years after the assault, continues to grapple with the assault and its aftermath.

It is a system that keeps abuser and victim — father and mother — in a slow-burning dispute, long after a judge rules guilty and bruises have healed.

It is a system that decides simple questions of guilt or innocence rather quickly, but bogs down on the more complex, more subjective issues of child custody, financial support and parenting.

“That is the No. 1 problem we hear from our crisis centers and victims,” said Amanda Grady Sexton, the public affairs director of New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. “We see batterers that are absolutely using the system to continue the abuse,” Sexton said. One of their favorite moves: to gain 50-50 custody so they don’t have to pay child support, she said. Sexton said family court is geared toward the 90 percent of cases where parents amicably break up and agree on custody and other parenting decisions. But for the other 10 percent — and that’s often when domestic assault is a factor — it’s non-stop motions, counseling sessions and court hearings.Duhaime’s ordeal started with the assault in late September 2014. Two months later, Hodgkins was found guilty and given a suspended jail sentence.

“He basically walked away. He got a slap on the wrist,” said Duhaime, who is 49.

Then the family case started.

Hodgkins pays $800 a month on a pretty regular basis, according to court records. An Air Force veteran, he has been deemed completely disabled, and receives $4,500 a month in veteran benefits and Social Security disability, according to his financial statements filed with family court.

Duhaime earns about $25,600 annually as a licensed nursing assistant at Hillsborough County nursing home. She lives in an apartment with her two children in south Manchester. She gets no food stamps or welfare, she said.

The big issue is child custody.

The judge in the case said Hodgkins deserves a chance to develop a relationship with his son, now 12. But Duhaime won’t let that happen, according to Hodgkins’ lawyer.

“She will not follow a court order to save her life,” said Manchester lawyer Jaye Rancourt. Hodgkins has participated in counseling, anger management and batterers evaluation, she said. Nothing points to a propensity for violence.

“All he wants to do is see his son. That’s the only thing he wants. It’s heartbreaking,” Rancourt said.

Rancourt works for free, part of a program that provides legal help to veterans. She is Hodgkins’ third lawyer after two previous lawyers — Mark Howard and David Ruoff — had to drop out of his case to become judges.

Duhaime has no lawyer; New Hampshire Legal Assistance said it couldn’t take her case, she said.So she goes it on her own. Duhaime said her son doesn’t want to see Hodgkins. She has encouraged him to do so, she said, but he is adamant. She can understand.

“Nobody can guarantee to me his safety 100 percent,” Duhaime said. (Duhaime said Hodgkins was in the Air Force for a short time and never saw combat; Rancourt said she’s unsure of Hodgkins’ military record.)

The stalemate goes on. Last month, Judge Susan Carbon ordered Duhaime to pay $200 a month for a counselor to determine if Duhaime is unfairly influencing the boy against Hodgkins. Hodgkins is paying a retainer for the counselor, and Duhaime has to pay him back, which makes her indebted to her one-time assailant, she complained.
And so it goes, circling nonstop like a whirlpool of water in a drain. How to stop it up?

Rancourt said judges know when a batterer is using the system and put a stop to it.

Sexton said the problem can’t be fixed by passing a law. She said judges, mediators and guardians have to be trained to understand domestic violence. And she’d like to see a special family court that deals with domestic violence.

“Look at the Joshua Savyon case,” Sexton said, referring to the 2013 murder-suicide involving a father and his 9-year-old son during a supervised visitation. “Talk about red flags. He did what he told everybody he would do.”

Duhaime said she becomes anxious when she appears in court. She complains that the judge doesn’t listen to her. The judge, Carbon, headed up the U.S. Office on Violence Against Women in the Obama administration.

In her court orders, Carbon acknowledges Duhaime’s concerns in writing. But the judge stresses that the state Legislature presumes that contact with both mother and father is in the best interest of a child.

For a non-lawyer, Duhaime seems to be pretty good at forestalling a possible reunification between father and son.

But why shouldn’t she? After all, judges want her to put their faith in the system. The same system that let a guy walk free after he broke her nose.“You feel like you’re going to reach a safe haven when you reach our court system,” Duhaime said, “and then you realize that’s not the case.”

Mark Hayward’s City Matters appears Saturdays in the New Hampshire Union Leader and UnionLeader.com. He can be reached at mhayward@unionleader.com.