Where does one begin? Even New Hampshire's quiet scenic North Conway is not immune from a Judge practicing the art of "Article 73-a." North Conway's very own judge, Pamela D. Albee, is truly the epiphany of NH's 1978 amended constitution.
McLLARKY V DOHERTY
CHILD CUSTODY CASE IN CONWAY NH
PART 1
PART 1
This all began during a visitation by Mr. McLlarky with the couples daughter. Mr. McLlarky pre-meditatively planned, then took his daughter during his visitation, from her Derry NH home, never to return her. He then enrolled her in a school where he lived, in the Conway NH area. He then went and immediately filed a petition to the court in Conway, NH, for an emergency Ex Parte for custody. He stated that the child was with him, because the mother was leaving her in daycare, sometimes 12 or more hours per day, and not tending to the child's needs. However he did not disclose the previous Derry NH District Court Orders, that were already in place. He also requested that his "Address be sealed" so that Ms Doherty would not be able to find him or their daughter. Remember the A.K.A Clark Rockefeller?
Well Conway NH's Judge Albee Simply granted his request without notifying or hearing from the mother, her side of this story. The Conway Courts immediately contacted the Derry District Court house with the Order and the request by Mr. McLlarky to seal his address, to now serve Ms. Doherty. The Derry NH Court house was all to willing to comply with both the order and the request. This is how Article 73-a is chosen to be used by a NH judge.
Are you a parent who loves photographing your children's life as they grow up? You may want to think twice! The following is Judge Albee's ruling on photos Ms . Doherty took of her 2 yr. old daughter, and then placed on her My Space, only for those with her permission, are capable and can access. The photos were not "provocative poses" as Judge Albee implies in her ruling, but simply of her daughter playing on a hot summer day, dressed only with bottom clothing on.
These photos were investigated and cleared of any wrongdoing by both law enforcement, Detective Richard, and child advocacy groups, to whom, Mr. McLlarky made a false report to, without even physically having the photos in hand, let alone access to them himself, all because, according to him, he was told by a third party that they existed. This all just so happens to coincidentally occur, on the morning of the first day of mediation, for this case. Ms. Doherty was then court ordered by Judge Albee, to possibly self incriminate herself and produce the pictures.
When law enforcement investigated, they were incapable of accessing Ms. Doherty's My Space account, let alone, "those with criminal intent towards children lurk", as Judge Albee implies in her ruling! Ms. Doherty said, the investigation clearly stated in their reports, that Mr. McLlarky was even warned of the consequences for filing false reports to government and private agencies, for the sole purpose of his custody battle. If he chooses to pursue it further, he will be arrested for falsifying reports to government agencies and law enforcement. However, Judge Albee did not care about the findings of this investigation.
JUDGE ALBEE's RULING ON PHOTO'S
"While the pictures Jamie posted on her my space and published over the internet to friends and family, in and of themselves (Were investigated and cleared of all and any wrongdoing by law enforcement) may not necessarily be pornographic, in todays world of internet crime, post images of a young child, partially unclothed or provocatively posed, in a domain in which those with criminal intent towards children lurk, demonstrates a troubling lack of judgement, of not a disturbing naivete about a child's safety and vulnerability. That others, particularly the child's father, would be outraged, should not be shocking to the other parent. Ms. Doherty needs to appreciate when law enforcement or child advocacy centers do forensic interviews of children alleged to have been inappropriately touched, they often ask the questions, did anyone touch you in those areas a bathing suit would cover. If a young female child grows up thinking she only wears a bathing suit bottom , she may come to believe that if someone fondles her breasts, that is OK. Likewise, if she is encouraged to show her buttocks, playful or otherwise, she may begin to think touching those areas is also permitted. " Thus, how Article 73-a is used, by a NH judge and not NH State law.
If this were true, then all of NH's lake's region and seacoast police should be patrolling NH beaches and arresting every parent of every female baby toddler running around naked, or just dressed in bottoms and bonnets! Or how about those publicly changing diapers on blankets, in carriages, at parks, beaches, and campgrounds, exposing penises, vaginal and buttock areas, of infants and baby toddlers to the public. Are these not "in a domain in which those with criminal intent towards children lurk?"
How about all television commercials for baby diapers, ointments and creams, exposing toddlers running around in just a diaper? Because of this, "she may come to believe that if someone fondles her breasts, that is OK." according to Judge Albee's world, allot of parents are sick. Should those parents be arrested and lose their children because they did it for money? Aren't these commercials filmed "in a domain in which those with criminal intent towards children" are possibly employed? Ms. Doherty's photo's were simply in the privacy of a back yard of a private home and again with no ridiculous sick "provocative poses", as one sick NH Judge implies. Don't you think it's bad enough when people are permitted to speak hearsay in a courtroom? Now NH Judges are getting away with doing it in their rulings! In a preliminary report by a second GAL of Judge Albee's choice, the following was noted.
"Pursuant to the Exparte Order dated December 10, 2007. The court stressed that the child was to remain fully clothed in all photographs, and could not socialize with family and friends in her underwear during the christmas visit.....Tina Craig was granted the authority to resolve any disputes regarding the times or duration of the phone calls. Ms.Craig was also granted the ability to determine which photographs of the child could be posted on Ms. Doherty's website."
"Pursuant to the Status Conference Order dated January 29, 2008. The court was advised that Tina Craig had recommended that Elwood McClarky tape all phone conversations between Jamie Doherty and (their daughter). Although the court ordered the taping of phone calls to continue, the court stressed that (the child) and her mother "should be afforded privacy during their calls." Tina Craig was given the authority to allow Elwood McClarky to monitor the calls from the same room if her review of the tape recordings led her to believe such a change would be appreciated."
So much for the law! Who needs law enforcement when you have fraudulent committing NH GAL's telling people, just go right ahead, just simply tape record all your children's conversations, with their other parent, in a 2 party state. Don't worry, just because the police can't legally tell you to do it, or even legally do it themselves, your Fraudulent committing NH GAL can! they will even inform the courts, that they gave you permission to break the law, then that becomes all cool with the judge! Okay, seriously people? It is definitely time to begin drug testing all NH Judges and GALs, when you see this kind of behavior! This is what Article 73-a does for NH Judges. It overrides all federal and legislative laws, including you constitutional rights, if a NH Judge so chooses too!
NH LAW
"It is a felony to intercept or disclose the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2-I.
It is punishable by imprisonment of one to seven years. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann § 625:9."
Juge Albee has been presiding over McLlarky v. Doherty since 2007. Though this case has been in the NH courts since before then. Judge Albee also assigned Tina Craig as "Guardian Ad Litem" to this case in 2007, and made many references in her court orders, based only on Tina Craig's reports alone, as you can clearly see.
However, there is another major problem. According to NH RSA Law during this time period, a NH Guardian Ad Litem must be Board certified by NH's Guardian Ad Litem Board. Ms. Doherty took it upon herself to check Ms. Craig's status, and was informed on September 22, 2010 by NH's GAL Board, that Tina Craig's certification status had expired January 12, 2009 and has not been recertified since. Ms. Doherty was also informed by the GAL Board that Tina Craig was aware of this, and there was no application for her re-certification before the board at that time.
When Ms. Doherty’s mother, Collen Hamilton, decided to anonymously call the Conway District Courthouse, to ask whether or not a Guardian Ad Litem had to be Board Certified, the court clerk was unsure and said, “let me go ask a judge.” The court clerk then returned with the response, “Yes, they have to be Board Certified!"
The court clerk then immediately questioned her why she was asking, and if she knew of someone working on a case that was not Board Certified? Mrs. Hamilton's response was, "I'm just inquiring what the laws were pertaining to NH GAL's", she then thanked the court clerk and ended the call. Not only has Tina Craig not been Board Certified, but she has now been fraudulently misrepresenting herself as a “NH Board Certified Guardian Ad Litem.” This is what Article 73-a permits, in a so-called NH court of law, if a NH judge so chooses.
At the NOVEMBER 19, 2010 hearing, Ms. Doherty gave both Judge Albee and Tina Craig a copy of the email She received from the NH GAL Board. She told Judge Albee that she wanted Tina Craig removed from her case and from the courtroom immediately based on the fact that Tina Craig is not a NH Board Certified Guardian Ad Litem, and has not been one since January 12, 2009.
Judge Albee told Ms Doherty that she was just recently made aware of Ms. Craig’s GAL status and had wanted to speak with her before the hearing, but did not have the time to do so. Judge Albee stated that she will not permit Tina Craig to have input in these proceedings, but then refused to remove Ms. Craig from the courtroom.
Judge Albee not only refused to remove Ms. Craig from the courtroom, but then suddenly permits Ms. Craig‘s colleague, Ms. Christine Dias a presently non involved 3rd party, to suddenly speak on behalf of Ms. Craig, also now as a counselors point of view, for this case. This is how Article 73-a is chosen to be used by a NH judge.
Ms. Dias told Judge Albee that she was not even aware that she was to be present for this hearing until very recently, within the last couple of days. I myself was personally present and saw Tina Craig and Christine Dias in conversation before court began. Gee, now doesn’t this make you wonder why it was suddenly brought to Judge Albee‘s attention....NOW? And by whom? She heard about it from Ms. Doherty in court that day. Judge Albee has continuously for 22 months, illegally referred (by State Law anyway) to reports from a fraudulent Uncertified Board Approved GAL. This is how Article 73-a is chosen to be used by a NH judge.
Ms. Craig came to this hearing prepared with a colleague to speak on her behalf for the previous 22 months that Ms. Craig now has fraudulently misrepresented herself as a NH Board Certified GAL. Mrs. Hamilton's phone call to the court house, could have possibly tipped them off. However, Ms Doherty was now still being held in Contempt of Court for, and I quote, “GAL Fees” for what is clearly an illegal (by Legislative Laws) Uncertified NH Board GAL! This is how Article 73-a is chosen to be used by a NH judge.
According to Ms. Doherty, she was also being held in Contempt of Court for non payment of Child support while Mr. McLlarky was forgiven by the Conway District Court, for being in the rears to the tune of $4,000 in child support that he owed the state of NH, because Ms. Doherty was already awarded to be the primary parent, by Derry NH District Court! Judge Albee said in court that, she will probably not even hold a hearing, and will just rule on Ms Doherty's Contempt of Court Charges, refusing to now permit Ms. Doherty her constitutional rights to due process, to any kind of defense against all charges! This is how Article 73-a is chosen to be used by a NH judge.
Judge Albee also told Ms Doherty that a motion for Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law is what an Attorney would request, and that Ms Doherty has not done so. When in fact Ms. Doherty had retained an attorney that she could no longer afford for a short period of time. He first immediately motioned the court, for Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law on Ms. Doherty's behalf! This is how Article 73-a is chosen to be used by a NH judge.
Judge Albee then stated bias personal subjective opinions, and not law, when she told Ms. Doherty that, "THIS HAS NOW BECOME A WAR BETWEEN YOU AND I!" This is the reality of a NH Judge hiding behind Article 73-a and clearly not following NH state legislative laws!
All this because Ms. Doherty refuses to comply with court orders made by a Judge, who refuses to comply with legislative laws herself, and only rules by Article 73-a. Judge Albee has continually refused to remove herself from this case, or support what Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law, gives her jurisdiction, to override a Derry NH District Court ruling, that was already in place. Needless to say, Judge Albee now 5 years later, is still refusing to answer that question! This is how Article 73-a is chosen to be used by a NH judge.
When Ms Doherty asked Judge Albee again, on what authority did she have any jurisdiction to suddenly court order Ms. Doherty into therapy, and then even go as far, as to court order her records from her therapist, when in fact by law this is privileged information, while simultaneously permitting, Mr. McClarky to just suddenly choose, to not only stop his own therapy, but their daughters therapy too? Judge Albee‘s response was that, Mr. McClarky substantiated a "good reason for that." But when Ms Doherty asked Judge Albee to remind her what that "good reason" was, Judge Albee then suddenly just said, and I quote, “I DON’T KNOW!!!” This is how Article 73-a is chosen to be used by a NH judge.
Judge Albee then also stated that once Ms. Craig was re-Certified as a GAL that she will remain on this case as the GAL, clearly forgiving Ms. Craig’s little illegal (by Legislative Law) indiscretions. During these proceedings, Ms. Craig constantly jumped up more than once, asking permission to explain her illegal indiscretions to the court, that Ms. Doherty spoke of.
Judge Albee now suddenly changes her mind and granted her permission to speak at these proceedings. Ms Craig begins right out of the gate, by perjuring herself. She tells the court she was not aware of her certification expiring, or even had knowledge of when she had to renew her certification, but then tells the court she has already begun the renewal process? She also told the court that the NH GAL Board told her she may continue working on all her cases. Remember, she was given in court that day, the email from the GAL Board, that clearly states, “SHE IS AWARE THAT HER CERTIFICATION EXPIRED!” When I spoke with The GAL Board's secretary, she said that Tina Craig also attempted and requested to waive the training process for her re-certification. Their response to her was "absolutely not!" I was also told by the NH GAL Board Secretary that the NH GAL Board did not give Tina Craig permission to continue working on all her cases! This is how Article 73-a is chosen to be used by a NH judge.
Tina Craig was now very quickly and miraculously re-certified by the NH GAL Board as of NOVEMBER 19, 2010, ...WOW! ...What a coincidence! ...The same date that the hearing was held! Her re-certification was now good for 3 more years! We can only hope Tina Craig will not suffer anymore amnesia lapses in the future! Maybe someone should check the expiration date on her drivers license, because this just all is the only NH way!
NEED I SAY MORE?
OH, BELIEVE ME, WE HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN TO SCRAPE THE ICING ON THIS CASE!
OH, BELIEVE ME, WE HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN TO SCRAPE THE ICING ON THIS CASE!
