NH's FAMILY COURTS SUPPORT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!

NH FAMILY COURT SUPPORT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ONCE AGAIN!

This happened Sunday August 11, 2013

WHEN WILL NH'S JUDGES STOP SUPPORTING PARENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND PAY ATTENTION TO EVIDENCE OF CHILD ENDANGERMENT!  EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER CHILD'S BLOOD IS NOW ON THE HANDS OF NH'S FAMILY  COURTS!   
 

Boston Harold reports

Father Shot Son, Self to Spite Ex

"MANCHESTER, N.H. — A 54-year-old father shot his 9-year-old son dead to spite his former girlfriend, then killed himself, all in front of a social worker during a supervised visit at a YWCA yesterday, authorities said. “There’s a lot of sadness and also anger on the part of everyone involved that a father would take his son’s life for no other reason than apparently to spite his mother,” said New Hampshire Assistant Attorney General Jeffery Strelzin.  Muni Sav­yon had made threats about a year ago to harm himself, his ex-girlfriend and their 9-year-old boy, Joshua Savyon, Strelzin said.  The social worker was not harmed during the attack, which was captured on video about 
10 a.m. after the boy’s mother had dropped him off.  Strelzin said the YWCA regularly hosts supervised visits and sometimes uses a metal detector to screen parents, but did not do so yesterday.  He said despite the past threats, no one suspected Savyon was capable of violence.  “From what we know right now, no one saw this coming today,” Strelzin said." 

(Finally, a true confession coming straight from NH's own Attorney General's office showing how NH's Legal System, clearly turns a blind eye once again, supporting their practices of the HEAR NO EVIL, SEE NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL rule!  Mr. Strelzin  stated, "despite the past threats, no one suspected Savyon was capable of violence."  Not true.  Because he himself clearly stated that the mother "had reservations", which is why Savyon was having "supervised visits" in the first place.  He then also stated, "from what we know right now, no one saw this coming today."  Well once again, also not true, because the NH Family Courts themselves, had already establish concern for the child's safety, and obviously agreed with the mother's "reservations."  They would not just simply take action and court order a parent to have only supervised visits with his child for no good reason, or now would they?  NH's Legal System has been capable of putting both feet in their mouths for quite some time now.  Both in and out of the courtroom as they clearly have established here.  They obviously don't know when to quit.  Especially now while poorly attempting to wash the blood off their hands, from yet another unnecessary death, of yet another NH child in their care.   NH continues to support and live by their motto, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, "Live Free Or Die!"  Apparently now you can LITERALLY do both in NH.  The freedom to do anything while you live, then die!)

“She had reservations, which is why he was having supervised visits.  She wasn’t there.  She dropped her son off and unfortunately his father decided to take his life.”  Strelzin confirmed that Savyon emailed a note to someone before the attack that is now being studied by investigators.  He wouldn’t comment on the contents.  Rabbi Levi Krinsky of Chabad Lubavitch, who said he knew Savyon and had seen the email, said it explained what Savyon 
intended to do, and that he would be dead by the time the person read it.  He declined to identify the recipient.  Ellen Vig of Billerica, Sayvon’s ex-wife — not the mother of his child — said she has a copy of the letter, written in Hebrew.  “It was his intentions. What he wanted to do with his property,” she said. “It’s a suicide note.”  Vig said Savyon had been depressed since his brother died unexpectedly in Israel six weeks ago, but she didn’t know him to be a violent person.  She said Savyon was frequently in court in custody fights with his son’s mother since they split several years ago, and took those fights hard. The boy’s mother could not be reached for comment.  Krinsky said he knew Savyon was despondent over his brother’s death, but said he didn’t imagine Savyon would take this course. “The sane mind cannot comprehend the thoughts of the 
insane mind,” Krinsky said."
 - See more at: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/08/nh_official_father_shot_son_self_to_spite_ex#sthash.sgt4l8Bj.dpuf





 

(UPDATED 2015) NH FAMILY DIVISION RULE 1.25-A

Many people are not aware that on December 1, 2011, New Hampshire put into effect a much needed mandatory self disclosure Family Division Rule, 11 months after the wife went public in Brosor v Brosor.  This was necessary because of justices such as NH's Marital Master Alice love, NH's Superior Criminal Court, Superior Criminal Court Judge William J. Groff, along with others like them, such as NH's perjurious Criminal Defense Attorney Richard C. Follender along with his client, Roger R. Brosor.  They freely committed Perjury, Fraud, Obstruction of Justice, and Grand Theft.  These crimes were just simply performed by freely withholding financial evidence (interrogatories), all permitted by the one and only NH's Judicial Branch.    

The Family Division Rule 1.25-A is designed for the discovery procedure to be processed now within a specific time frame.  So if your attorney is the perjuriously infamous Richard C. Follender, please be sure to inform him of this rule along with NH state and Federal laws!  Each party must now exchange certain required financial documents no later than 45 days of receiving the petition or, 10 days prior to temporary hearing or the initial hearing on the petition, whichever comes first. Will this rule actually be followed and enforced by all NH lawyers and the NH courts still remains to be seen.  Or will it just simply become like NH laws, that are still to this day will not be followed or enforced, clearly clarified and proven by a NH State House Representative, Carol McGuire.

"The new Family Division Rule obligates each party to provide to the other side the following:

a) A current financial affidavit in the format required by family division rule 2.16, including the monthly expense form.

b) The past 3 years' personal and business federal and state income tax returns and partnership and corporate returns for any non-public entity in which either party has an interest, together with all tax return schedules, including but not limited to W-2's, 1099's,1098's, K-1's, Schedule C, Schedule E and any other schedules filed with the IRS.

c) The 4 most recent pay stubs (or equivalent documentation) from each current employer, and the year end pay stub (or equivalent document) for the calendar year that conducted prior to the filing of the action.

d) For business owners or self employed parties, all monthly, quarterly and year to date financial statements to include profit and loss, balance sheet and income statements for the year in which the action was filed; and all year-end financial statements for the calendar year that concluded prior to the filing of the action.

e) Documentation confirming the cost and status of enrollment of employer provided medical and dental insurance coverage for:

I. The party.

II. The party's spouse, and

III. the party's dependent child(ren).

f) For the 12 months prior to the filing of the action, any credit, loan and/or mortgage applications, or other sworn statement of assets and/or liabilities, prepared by or on behalf of either party.

g) For the 12 months prior to the filing of the action, documentation related to employee benefits such as but not limited to stock options, retirement, pension, travel, housing, use of company car, mileage reimbursement, profit sharing, bonuses, commissions, membership dues, or any other payments to or on behalf of either party.

h) For the 12 months prior to the filing of the action, statements for all bank accounts held in the name of either party individually or jointly, or any business owned by either party, or in the name of another person for the benefit of either party, or held by either party for the benefit of the minor's child(ren).

i) For the 12 months prior to the filing of the action, statements for all financial assets, including but not limited to all investment accounts, retirement accounts, securities, stocks, bonds, notes or obligations, certificates of deposit owned or held by either party or individual retirements account (IRA) statements, and pension plan statements.

j) For the 12 months prior to the filing of the action, any and all life insurance declaration pages, beneficiary designation forms and the most recent statements of cash, surrender and loan value.

k) for the 6 months prior to the filing of the action, statements for all credit cards held by either party, whether individually or jointly.

L) Any prenuptial or written postnuptial agreements signed by the parties.


2. The parties may redact all but the last four (4) digits of any account numbers and social security numbers that appear on any statements or documents.


3. The parties shall promptly supplement all disclosures as material changes occur while the action is pending.

4. A party may seek a protective order for information disclosed in response to these mandatory disclosures. Protective orders will ordinarily be available upon request. In the event of a dispute concerning the need for a protective order, the party seeking the order shall file a motion requesting that the Court conduct an in camera review of the materials in dispute. The Court will review the materials and determine if a protective order is necessary. From the date of the filing of the motion until such ruling, the materials shall be produced, but shall be disclosed by the parties only to their attorneys, staff, experts/consultants, in court, and as otherwise necessary in connection with the pending action. Materials submitted for in camera review shall be sealed in the Court's file until the Court determines the necessity of a protective order. If a protective order is issued, the Court shall seal the exhibits submitted in connection with the request for the protective order that remain in the Court's file.

C. UNAVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS.
1. In the event that either party does not have any or all of the documents required under this rule or has not been able to obtain them, that party shall state in writing, under oath, the specific documents which are not available, the reasons the documents are not available, and the efforts made by the party to obtain the documents. A statement of unavailability under this provision does not limit the filing party's duty to supplement disclosures and provide the other party with documentation as it becomes available.

2. When a statement of unavailability is filed or when it otherwise becomes apparent that documents required by this rule are unavailable, the party seeking the documents may prepare and submit to the other party appropriate authorizations or releases enabling the seeking party to retrieve the documents from their source. Upon receipt of such a release or authorization the party to whom documents were unavailable shall execute and immediately return to the seeking party the release or authorization. The seeking party may use the authorization or release to retrieve the unavailable documents covered by this rule, initially at their own expense, but that expense may be reallocated upon motion or at the final hearing.

D. FAILURE TO PROVIDE INITIAL DISCLOSURES.
1. Unless and until a party provides Initial Disclosures as required by section B and C above, the Court may impose sanctions, including, but not limited to prohibiting that party from:

(a) introducing into evidence any document which was required under section B or C of this rule;

(b) testifying or making an offer of proof regarding information or subject matter which is likely to be contained in or referred to in section documents required by section B and C;

(c) filing requests for discovery as allowed under the family division rules; or

(d) filing any discovery motions.

2. If a party's failure to provide Initial Disclosures prejudices access of a compliant party to requested substantive relief, such as the calculation and receipt of child support, the Court may, in addition to other sanctions, address the relief requested by the compliant party on the basis of reasonable estimates and assumptions, at least until such time as the documents are produced.

E. ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY.
If a party is in compliance with section B and C of this rule, that party may request further information as allowed under family division rules. This rule is not intended to limit the scope of discovery as provided under family division rule 1.25.

F. COURT ORDERED COMPLIANCE
Notwithstanding any agreement by the parties for limited applicability, the Court may, at any time, order full compliance with this rule.

This rule was adopted as part of an ongoing effort to increase efficiency in the process of domestic relations cases. Compliance with this rule should assist parties and counsel in avoiding many costly and time consuming discovery disputes. By codifying the expectations of which types of information must be produced, the rule creates a uniform approach to financial discovery. This rule provides for the exchange of basic discovery early on in the case. This starts the parties off on a positive note where they are exchange and sharing information rather than litigating contested issues. In domestic relations cases, the parties do not always have equal access to information about financial matters. Requiring mandatory disclosure may assist in leveling the playing field, allowing both parties access to information, which in turn should enable them to prepare for settlement discussions.

Understanding the practical implications of the new Mandatory Initial Self Disclosure Rule ("Rule") is extremely important for lawyers and clients. Because mandatory disclosure provides for the exchange of basic discovery necessary for the resolution of any case, it should be seen as an opportunity to start the divorce or other family law process to which the new rule applies, on a positive note with the focus being cooperation rather than conflict.

Parties don't always have equal access or control over financial and other relevant information; mandatory disclosure helps to level the playing field by ensuring the exchange of basic information. It also encourages cooperation between counsel not just for mandatory disclosure but for the exchange of other relevant discovery. The modeling by the attorneys in having their clients timely exchange information under the Rule creates an environment where one is more likely to get other discovery by agreement.
As Family Division Administrative Judge Edwin Kelly states: "The collaborative effort between the court and bar in producing the Mandatory Disclosure Rule will, we hope, result in an equally collaborative effort geared toward implementing the Rule.

Members of the bar will be called upon to honor the intention of the Rule which is to reduce the conflict and motion practice related to discovery in family cases. Over the years conflict on these basic issues has consumed the time and resources of the bar, the court and, most importantly, the thousands of families who cases are the subject of dispute in the state's family courts. It goes without saying that none of us can afford this unnecessary use of our limited resources, nor does it serve either the best interest of the families before the court or our system of justice to continue down this adversarial path."

Practice Tools and Tips
Mandatory disclosure streamlines and reduces cost for clients, and can dramatically reduce discovery issues that need to be litigated. In thinking about the practical application of the new Rule, the following may be helpful:

1. Explain the mandatory discovery rules as part of the initial consult, and provide the client with a copy of Rule 1.25-A. Many clients, even if they don't retain you immediately, will start gathering the necessary information for the initiation of their case. You should encourage them to do so. Being prepared will save them time and legal fees.

2. Immediately upon being retained, provide your client with a copy of Rule 1.25-A, even if you did so initially, with a detailed explanation of what they are required to produce and why. Make clear that this is MANDATORY! Explain the possible consequences for failure to comply, which under the Rule can be onerous. Clients are much more likely to comply with the Rule if they are explicitly told what they must produce and the purpose of providing those documents. Clients should also be told they have a duty to inquire. The fact that they don't keep their bank or credit card statements each month does not mean they don't have to produce those documents. They either need to obtain them online or make a request to the bank or other third party. This also holds true for information from employers, life insurance companies, or other third parties to whom the client may have to make inquiry. Some clients will prefer that you inquire, and you should have the client sign a release to obtain the information. Availability of Health insurance benefits in particular can be confusing. Although not specifically required by the rule, it may be helpful to have your client obtain a letter from H.R. explaining the available post-divorce coverage. In some cases, there can be a significant charge by third parties in order for them to provide requested documents. In those circumstances, have your clients alert you about this, to see if there is a way to share the cost between the parties. However, clients may have to incur some costs to obtain mandatory disclosure documents, so let them know this up front.

3. Create a mandatory disclosure compliance checklist allowing clients to easily check off what they have/have not provided and why, when they send you their responsive documents. Give clients a deadline date for them to respond, explaining that you need time to review what they produce, ensure that it is complete, and have time to organize in order to send to opposing counsel. If the other party is pro se, send them a copy of the Rule along with a letter enclosing the same checklist you provided to your client. Ask them to provide their responsive documents to you by a date certain, and explain that your client will provide responsive documents in a timely fashion.

4. When you get the responsive documents from your client, review them carefully to be sure everything has been provided, and in complete form. For example, tax returns without supporting schedules are not sufficient. If anything is missing without explanation, follow through and find out why. Whether it is mandatory initial self-disclosure or other discovery, some clients need more assistance than others, either because they just don't understand what is being asked of them, they don't know how to obtain some of the documents or they are overwhelmed by the emotional stress of the divorce. You will have clients who are resistant to providing documents, or even completing a financial affidavit. Providing your client with guidance as to the Rule and its requirements, and giving them with whatever assistance is necessary, is imperative in getting compliance under the Rule. If you are not going to be timely, let other attorney know and obtain an extension of time to respond. Let the other attorney know you are working with your client to comply with the Rule. Under these circumstances, you may want to send at least partial disclosure if you don't yet have all the information.

5. Consider a joint request or a joint subpoena if neither party is able to obtain documents required by the Rule. The Rule provides for giving releases or other authorization for the exchange of information, but a joint request from counsel may be necessary in some cases, and is certainly the most cost-effective option.

6. Mandatory disclosure can result in the production of lots of paper. Consider the exchange of information on CD, However be sure you properly protect any confidential information provided on CD. Also, don't just keep a copy of the documents you sent in your computer files. Keep an actual and protected copy of the CD as well in your file.

7. Create a mandatory disclosure response form to be signed by your client. This will be attached to the documents produced and outline what is attached, including dates covered by the documents (e.g. Big Bank checking account number xxx-___, statements dated January 1-December 1, 2010). This provides easy identification of what is being produced and what is missing. If documents are missing but are in the process of being obtained, or you are endeavoring to obtain a document but are not sure you will be able to do so, include that in the response. Don't hold up responding because one document is missing. You can always supplement as needed.

8. When providing your response, separate out the documents by section with colored paper or some other way to distinguish the various components of mandatory disclosure, and organize chronologically by date. This is helpful to counsel and the parties and appreciated. Sending a pile of disorganized and unidentified documents undermines purpose of the Rule and the spirit of the NH Bar Association litigation guidelines. (Note that the NH Superior Court rules specifically identify disorganized production as a form of discovery abuse)

9. It can be difficult to get records in some cases, especially where a party is self-employed or pro se. If the records aren't being produced under the Rule, consider a Motion to Compel. If you must file Motion to Compel mandatory disclosure, request attorney's fees and whatever other sanctions are appropriate and permissible under the Rule. However, indicate to counsel that if you receive the documents pursuant to the Rule by a date certain you will withdraw your motion. If opposing counsel is having difficulty with his/her own client in obtaining the mandatory disclosure documents, or a self-employed or pro se party is being non-compliant, a motion makes clear that this is mandatory, and there are consequences, but that your goal is to obtain the documents and that you are giving them a final opportunity to comply.

10. Review your file regularly at crucial points in the case to ensure there is continuing compliance by both parties in terms of updating documents during the legal process when there are significant and material changes, as contemplated by the Rule. Update the disclosure checklist whenever the production is supplemented.

11. Although it is unlikely attorneys will opt totally out of mandatory disclosure, there are cases for example, where you might consider and agree to a more limited disclosure than required by the Rule. If the case is one where there is trust between the parties, or one of limited assets/liabilities, or the parties are both well aware of their financial circumstances, the parties and counsel can agree what actually needs to be produced. For example, there is rarely an opt out with regard to tax returns or retirement statements, but if parties always had joint accounts they may choose not to exchange the full range of bank statements but only the most recent statements. Before opting out in part or in full, ensure the client understands the Rule and the consequences of any opt out with respect to discovery and the impact upon their case. Any agreement to opt out either in part or in full should be in writing between the parties and counsel.

12. If you believe you need a protective order or confidentiality agreement in order to produce certain documents, draft the order or agreement and provide it to the other party for review to determine if you can reach agreement rather than litigate such an issue.

13. Parties can agree to follow the mandatory disclosure rule even without benefit of the court process, in mediation or collaborative law. You may even wish to include this in a mediation or collaborative law process agreement.

Mandatory disclosure builds trust between counsel and parties, by showing that the parties and counsel can work together toward the common goal of information exchange and reciprocity. Contact the other attorney or party if you have questions, if something is missing, or if you don't understand a document that you received. Mandatory disclosure not only helps build relationships early on in the case, but it provides a basis for the parties and/or counsel to begin communicating about a case so they understand what is needed to bring a case to conclusion. Any new Rule can seem onerous; however the Mandatory Initial Self Disclosure Rule should be embraced as a mechanism for simplifying and expediting discovery and therefore moving parties closer to resolution with less cost and less conflict.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances."

Well now, for Mr. Brosor's sake, hopefully his new wife's 3rd attempt at marriage truly is the charmed one, for Mrs. Laurie Ann Murry Nurnberg now Brosor, or who ever's future name she may take.  Because the next time she chooses to commit Welfare Fraud by spreading her legs, and tutoring 2 married men into divorcing to marry her, while they pay all her expenses, and buy her cell phones, houses, vacations, and medical coverage, financed only by their marital funds acquired during a marriage to others, and who also had to have HIV tests, that she proudly mails the results to their wife noting, "I have the originals for safe keeping, you know how to reach me!", because these married men simultaneously with their co-worker, had an affair with her during her 2nd divorce.  May now not be so easily condoned, as it has been for over the past 50 years, by NH's one and only Judicial Branch!  NH says this is a "No Fault Divorce", and calls this just a little "Irreconcilable Differences", so just get over it.  NH is truly a state that is strictly only a prostitute's paradise, all because NH's Judicial Branch says this profession is just simply a little "Irreconcilable Differences" when they participate in a marriage and then throughout the divorce.

Even NH's perjuriously infamous Criminal Defense Attorney, Richard C. Follender, has claimed on record to the courts, that NH's Al-anon's 12 step programs are now treating sex addiction along with supporting marriage counseling for those clients who are repeat offenders committing adultery.  No wonder my ex hired him.  However, the professionals in the field of psychology have yet to confirm this theory of New Hampshire's.  Clearly this demonstrates why the state of NH has continued to be the diseased state of polygamy without the license. 

 Let's just now hope that all illiterate NH Justices will finally learn, never mind actually use the invention called a calculator.  Maybe even take a math course or two.  Possibly even dust off and open a 1960's Webster dictionary once again!  Only this time, to now learn the definition of the word Fault in a "Fault Divorce" and "Equitable" in an "Equitable State".  The fact that NH's very own Supreme Court needed and relied on a 1960's Webster Dictionary, in the 21'st century, to tell them what Sexual Intercourse actually really is, truly is just speaking volumes in itself, for NH's Judicial Branch's illiteracy.  Well, so sorry to have to burst their perfect bubble but no, babies are not, nor have they ever been, delivered by the stork, like a jar of classic pickles!

NH's Judicial Branch has for over 50 years, claimed multiple times on record, that exchanging a spouse for a new one during the  marriage is just strictly a little "Irreconcilable Differences" in a divorce and nothing more.  This also includes having extra marital sex while remaining with a spouse, until caught that is.  NH government attempts to very poorly but proudly portray NH as the STEPFORD  WIVES fictional state.  Not one single case of Adultery charged in over 50 years throughout the whole entire state.  NH's sick interpretation for the sanctimony of marriage is very concerning to say the least.  When any government branch condones on record these practices and behaviors in a marriage, for over 50 years, truly shows it's in an extreme need of a complete psychological evaluation!  New Hampshire's Family Court Records also sufficiently support NH as the one and only Swinging State  in America.  For Adultery is just very simply put, only a little "Irreconcilable Differences" performed in a marriage.  Over 50 years of Family Court Records is also sufficient evidence to support how much NH has also been so damn proud of it too.    

 The irony is that you would be extremely surprised at the number of NH Justices, who while they themselves were suppose to be a fair clear open minded 3rd party, ruling on the demise of your marriage, were also simultaneously in the process of divorcing their own spouses.  Yes it's true.  Some NH Justices, while ruling on divorces, have also personally experienced these proceedings from the other side of the bench simultaneously.   Some even as many as 3 times themselves.  That's why some question if NH judges should be psychologically screened.  If they can't fairly support their own marriages, how are they capable of separating personal experience and opinion from their legal responsibilities, to conclude what is a fair divorce?  So lets just say that their own final divorce decrees would now truly be an interesting read, along with hearing their ex's side of the story. 

Exactly how do you divorce someone who has full Absolute Immunity from the law?  You can only just imagine what their hiding in those case files.  Especially all the evidence that was never even mentioned but should have been.  If those files could only talk, the  public would now have a clear knowledge of what their truly dealing with.  Well, when a state's government openly supports all the Anthony Weiners throughout it's country, you truly now know what you will never ever have to ask yourself twice.  Which is? What the hell is really going on in NH's Supreme Court, let alone in NH's State House?  Let's just clearly clarify that NH's government branches are the one and only Swingers on record, that would not just open political doors, but would also proudly open many other unusual delights, for Anthony's married Weiner.  According to NH, this is just only a little "Irreconcilable Differences" performed in a marriage anyway.  It's no big deal people, so get over it!  NH says so!

NH's JUDGE LUCINDA SADLER, ANOTHER NH JUDGE GONE ROGUE

Domestic Violence is a crime that the NH Family Courts are now openly supporting on record.  Judges Pamela Albee and Lucinda Sadler may truly have something to prove in an "All Boys School", but clearly have taken it too far to do so. To even have one NH Judge supporting parents arrested for Domestic Violence, is one to many. Cleveland Ohio is evidence of that.  Ariel Castro, age 52, was one of the suspects identified in the Cleveland Ohio kidnapping of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight.  He was arrested for Domestic Violence in 1993, but a grand jury dropped the charges and he pleads guilty to  disorderly conduct.  The results of these actions became too high a price to pay for not one, not two, but for 3 young girls.

Clearly there is a big difference between Ohio and New Hampshire.  Their Judicial System did not physically place these teens in Castro's hands and then leave them there after the fact the violence has been done.  Judge Lucinder Sadler has been scrutinized and rightfully so, for wrongful rulings in multiple child custody cases. As they say, if it walks and talks like one, then it clearly must be one.   Judge Sadler handed custody of  Jamie Doherty's son to his father, based only on the one clarification she stated in court, "He said...she said...somebody get me some evidence." 

Well, Judge Sadler wants evidence?  She got evidence!  Just a little over a month ago the father and his girlfriend went before the courts.  They both were charged with Domestic Violence, both Court ordered into anger management classes, and each fined $500.  Well clearly the child support that Judge Sadler ordered Ms. Doherty to pay, would not be going to the child's needs, if paid to the father.  On May 10, 2013, Judge Sadler held another hearing on this case.  The father and his girlfriend were now unsurprisingly a no show, but his attorney shows up now with his mother instead!  She informs Judge Sadler, that her client was not given sufficient notice for this hearing to inform his employer.  However, a 3 weeks notice is clearly sufficient time for any responsible attorney to properly inform the courts of any necessary changes required by her client. 

When Ms. Doherty, who is Pro Se, requested to have her mother sit with her during this hearing, Judge Sadler denied her request. When Ms. Doherty requested a continuance because of the fathers absence, her request was denied without findings of facts or ruling of law. When Ms. Doherty insisted and demanded a continuance once again, Judge Sadler then denied Ms. Doherty's request, stating they can do a conference call with the father, who was now presently at work for his employer.  Who now supposedly was not permitting the father's absence in the first place.  But would now supposedly permit his employee, to handle the situation by phone from work?  There was no conference call.  Well, once again stupidity clearly only is, as stupidity clearly does and gets!  It still remains to be seen what Judge Sadler will do with Ms. Doherty's other custody case within her hands.  

 If NH doctors and hospitals ever began to practice their field in medicine, the same as NH Judges and the majority of NH Lawyers practice their field in law, the malpractice suits alone would permanently be shutting doors to any medical treatment or needs throughout the state.  The irony of this case is that once upon a time, Judge Sadler just simply gave custody of Ms. Doherty's eldest child, to the child's father, Elwood McLlarky, just simply based on hearsay alone, and without even speaking to Ms. Doherty to hear her side.  When Ms. Doherty supported her argument in court with his police records, Judge Sadler immediately overturned her ruling and gave custody back to Ms. Doherty.

 To acknowledge ones mistake and attempt to correct them is all anyone can ask of one.  However, Mr. McLlarky then decided to move up to the Conway NH region.  He then premeditatedly kidnapped  his daughter, simply enrolled her in school, then filed for custody and won.  Unlike Judge Sadler at the time, Conway NH's Judge Albee was not against his criminal record and his multiple Domestic Violence records, past, present, or future.  Judge Albee referred to the multiple Domestic Violence incidents as "Ups And Downs" that "Benefited Emily and provided stability in her life."  Oh, I kid you not. This was quoted directly from Judge Albee's rulings.

When Ms. Doherty went public 2 months ago with her custody case, only then did Judge Albee quickly make the quick decision to run for the NH hills.  She quickly closed the case, once again, stating non existing evidence, that was never documented in the 6 years of this case, as findings of facts or ruling of laws, leaving the child permanently in the father's Domestic Violence custody, never to see her mother again.  Unlike Judge Albee, Judge Sadler still can choose to correct her mistakes, as she has proven to do so in the past, to do right by these children.  Will she do so still remains to be seen.

Update: Two separate cases, two different children, two separate fathers, but the same outcome.  Like Judge Albee, Judge Sadler strongly supports her views on Domestic Violence, but in the silent way, and will do so in NH Court records no less.  Her ruling rattled on about Ms. Doherty and her "legal issues" (with Judge Albee) and once again, allot of, "he said..", and "she said...", but she completely ignores one major piece of evidence. 

She now avoids mentioning anything about the father's current and latest arrest.  She fails to mention the results from the court hearing on it just held within the previous month.  This was one hearing he showed up for while being absent and excused by Judge Sadler, from multiple hearings concerning his son.  She fails to mention one word about the father's neglectful absence from multiple court hearings.   She purposely fails to mention him being charged along with his girlfriend for Domestic Violence.  Not one word of concern mentioned for the child's safety, whom she placed in the father's custody, based only on his hearsay alone.  Not one word of concern about him and his girlfriend's current court order into anger management classes, or being fined $500 each!  These are the people whom she just simply placed custody of a young boy with, because of her clarification she stated in court, "He said... she said...will somebody get me some evidence!"  When she finally gets her evidence, she ignores it completely.

When Ms. Doherty informed Judge Sadler of the father's latest arrest for Domestic Violence, his attorney just simply asked Judge Sadler, "what does that have to do with this case?"  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Who truly needs a Psychological Evaluation and Parenting assessment done now?  Well NH, do you really think Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight would agree right now, with NH's Justices and lawyers, placing children in the custody of Domestic Violence?  NH Justices will only just say, hush little children and don't you cry!

NEED I SAY MORE?

APPARENTLY YES!

NH's JUDGE PAMELA ALBEE, ANOTHER JUDGE GONE ROGUE PART 6

McLLARKY V DOHERTY

CHILD CUSTODY CASE IN CONWAY NH
Time Line UPDATED 4/16/13

NH's Judge Pamela Albee is truly one scorned NH Judge, capable of making up  a (non existing) child pornography issue on the internet, and falsely making it stick against the child's mother.  She bases a whole case on Hearsay, Perjury, Fraud, and above all Obstruction of Justice for six years!  Here is how it's just simply done by NH's Judicial Branch!

•  On 11-26-07 Elwood McLlarky without his attorney, filed a motion stating, "I respectfully ask the court to make Jamie have no more unsupervised visits with Emily, and am now only to have supervised visitation set up through Chocorua Visitation Services.  And grant myself complete physical and legal custody temporary, until these matters are resolved. Jamie has posted nude pics of Emily making inappropriate poses online on her MySpace website. She has sent them to her friends and family, and now these obscene pics of Emily are on the internet." This was the emergency that cancelled mediation that morning.  Both Mr. McLlarky's and Ms. Doherty's Attorney's agreed it was not necessary for their presence at this mediation therefore were not there.

• Judge Albee now immediately calls this case into her courtroom to now address this issue. She refused to wait for Ms. Doherty's Attorney to be present. Elwood without his attorney present either, now testifies to the court that, 5 minutes prior to arriving for mediation, he received a phone call from his sister Debra. She told him about the nude pics on the internet.  He testified that he himself could not get into Jamie's MySpace (Setting was on Private) to actually see the photos himself, nor did he have them for the court to view.  Therefore, nor was there any evidence that Ms. Doherty "sent them to her friends and family."

• Ms. Doherty was fearfully shocked and became hysterical, pleading that these latest false accusations were simply without merit and not true. Judge Albee then becomes upset and angry at Ms. Doherty's reaction. Judge Albee now tells Ms. Doherty she is frightening the court staff, and stated that Ms. Doherty's behavior was like "the man who came into the courtroom with a gun, and shot the Judge." The Court Audio tapes will support this. Ms. Doherty was then court ordered to bring the photos to Judge Albee in 2 weeks so that she and Elwood can view them.

• Meanwhile Judge Albee's Court Order states, " Ms. Doherty shall cause the images of Emily to be removed from her MySpace page. the Respondent's parenting time is hereby suspended pending further hearing. Ms. Doherty may have supervised visitation one time this week and one time next week prior to the hearing. Supervision shall be through Vaughn Center Community Services. Ms. Doherty shall show the GAL and the party's Attorneys an opportunity to see the images." 

• 3-13-08 Detective Richard received an allegation now from the National Center For Missing Exploited Children. He was uncertain of when they received the call from Elwood McLlarky advising them of obscene photographs.

• 3-17-08 Detective Richard contacted 3 people.

• 3-21-08 Detective Richard called both the Conway and Madison Police and found out that there were no reports made with either of them by Mr. McLlarky, pertaining to nude pics of his daughter all over the internet.  However the Chief of Madison did fax him a contact sheet listing all other multiple involvements with Mr. McLlarky, nothing pertaining to this case.

• 3-24-08 Ms. Doherty's attorney at the time, brought the pictures into Derry Police and gave them to Detective Richard. He explained the pictures were on Jamie Doherty's MySpace account. Only family and friends were capable to access because it was set on private. It was never intended for the general public, and he did not feel that Jamie Doherty had any intentions of attempting to solicit "lewdness or lascivious" thoughts, and/or did the pictures ever depict sexual conduct in a manner so explicit as to be patently offensive, and recommended the case be closed. he also informed Detective Richard that the photos were removed from MySpace per the Judge's order. He also clarified that there was an ongoing custody battle.

• All pictures were investigated by both police and child advocacy groups, and were cleared of any and all wrong doing of any kind.  The police could not find nude pictures of Emily on the internet, nor could they access Ms. Doherty's MySpace without her assistance, which she gave willingly.  The records also state that Mr. McLlarky was warned of the consequences, for filing false reports to law enforcement and private agencies, for the sole purpose of his custody battle.

• Yet again on 4-7-08 Status Hearing: Judge Albee's orders states an unsupported non existing false issue, "In the courts perception, supervised visits serve 2 purposes, first it is for Jamie's benefit to enable her to have contact with her child while she addresses the poor judgment issues which gave rise to the initial orders. These concerns were not limited to her decisions to post pictures of her partially clothed child on an internet site, whether allegedly pornographic or not." 

• However, the court records never documented once, their findings of facts or ruling of law as to what, "These concerns were" that were "not limited to Ms. Doherty's decisions to post pictures of her partially clothed child."   Once again, there was clearly no "concerns" to speak of other than non existing child pornography.  Judge Albee needed to clearly falsely imply another non existing issue to support her actions.

• On 6-15-08 The police were called to Mr. McLlarky's residence for Domestic Violence. The police report stated "Maggie has been rude to his daughter and Elwood cannot take it any longer." Elwood said he just let Maggie come back after they took a break for awhile. The GAL Tina Craig's only comment and response to this incident was, "That's in the past, we're moving forward."

• Yet once again on 7-17-08 Status Hearing: Judge Albee's order states an unsupported non existing false issue, "What started out as a disturbing allegation that Ms. Doherty Had published "pornographic" photographs of Emily has turned into significant effort on everyone's part to improve Ms. Doherty's parenting, her stability, and her exercise judgment relative to Emily.  Acknowledging that the case has never been heard on the merit of the pornography issue, the court can say from having viewed the images, that they, at the very least, communicate a naivete on Ms. Doherty's part of the dangers of publishing photographs of a partially clad toddler on any computer web page in today's society."

• 12/2008 The First Hearing on Final Parenting Plan: When Elwood McLlarky was called to testify, the future fraudulent GAL in part 1, Tina Craig, became extremely agitated and upset and attempted to stop any testimony from Elwood McLlarky! When Elwood McLlarky was asked, do you ever hit Emily?  He testified, "Yes, one hit the first time, if I have to speak twice, she gets 2 hits!" Tina Craig immediately jumps up and clarifies, "You mean a little tap!" Elwood then responds "Yes!" The courts audio will support this.  The question now is, should a NH fraudulent committing GAL get to have immunity from the law, the same as a NH Board certified GAL?

• Elwood also testified in court that he lied to the courts on his Ex Parte against his wife. He also claimed the police lied in the reports about Domestic Violence. The courts audio tapes will support this.

• When Tina Craig testified, she said that she took Elwood's word for everything. When asked, who told her about the incident pertaining to the restraining order against Maggie, she stated," Elwood did!" Audio again will support this.  However, Elwood claimed he never told her.

• YET AGAIN ON 2-19-09 FINAL ORDERS FOR PARENTING PLAN
• Judge Albee's fixation on the pictures continues a year and a half after they were cleared of any wrong doing by all licensed professionals.  She now continues to state false unsupported implications in her court order. "While the pictures Jamie posted on her my space and published over the internet to friends and family, in and of themselves 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 judgment, 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. " 

• Judge Albee also falsely states that, "Bottom line Elwood acknowledges the need for Emily to have a relationship with her mother." Not true, because Judge Albee was the one who clearly stated in the Conference Order Dated 2-27-08 that, "Mr. McLlarky's hyper vigilance regarding Ms Doherty's actions may be interfering with his ability to foster a quality relationship between (the child) and her mother." The second GAL also noted, " As a result, Elwood McLlarky was ordered to engage in counseling which will assist him in being able to co-parent with Ms. Doherty and to value her role in (the child's) life."  Yet again, lets not forget that this was the same counseling that Judge Albee told Ms. Doherty in court on November 19, 2010 that, Mr. McLlarky substantiated a "good reason" for terminating his own court ordered counseling.  But when Judge Albee was asked to state what that "good reason" was?  Her answer was, and I quote, "I DON'T KNOW!"  Court audio will clearly support this.

• Judge Albee once again falsely states unsupported issues without findings of facts or ruling of law that, "Jamie does not reciprocate by acknowledging the importance to Emily of having her father in her life. It is clear to the court that the parent who will assure the other parent is Elwood. He has maintained a relationship with Maggie, in spite of its ups and downs, which has benefited Emily? And provided her stability in her life?" I kid you not!  This is said about Ms. Doherty who trustingly allowed Elwood McLlarky to take his daughter in the first place, for only a visitation, unknowingly for another judge out of her jurisdiction, to suddenly give him custody.  Then Judge Albee also clarifies her views on Domestic Violence, constantly requiring police involvement, when she now refers to it as the "Ups and Downs", as she so eloquently puts it, actually stating this is what "benefited Emily and provided stability in her life!"  Ashes to Ashes and dust to dust, is what NH Justices clearly will do to NH's children! 

• Judge Albee then further goes on to state, "Absent a true emergency, the court will not address any request for modification of the residential responsibility and decision making orders set forth, until both parties engage in full scale psychological evaluations and parenting assessment?" 

• Well NH, in July of 2012, a father spending 2 weeks in jail, for strangling his girlfriend until she could no longer breath, punching her with a closed fist, throwing a pill bottle and hitting her in the head, forcing her on her hands and knees to tell him who she was having an affair with, and last but never shall be the least, threaten  "If you ever do that again, I will (blank) KILL YOU!"  All with the child present in the next room, just really isn't a "true emergency" in NH's eyes!  Because this is the type of "Ups And Downs" in the  relationship that "Benefited Emily and provided stability in her life"  in the first place.  Now there's NH's family values on how to raise a child, clearly explained all right in a nut shell!  Stupidity only is, as stupidity does and gets, coming directly straight from NH's Judicial branch!  Who really needs the Psychological Evaluation and Parenting Assessment now?

• Meanwhile, as if that wasn't enough, Judge Albee now decides it's time to bring in the big smoking gun, during her declaration of war against Ms. Doherty.  She now formed an alliance, with Judge Sadler from Derry District Courthouse, who now suddenly also strips Ms. Doherty of her parenting rights, to her other children, without findings of facts or ruling of laws.  She also then takes Judge Albee's lead, and orders Ms. Doherty to now pay child support, while presently unemployed, simply based once again, only on perjury and hearsay.  Once again, stupidity clearly only is as, stupidity does and gets.

•  Like Judge Albee, her cohort in crime, Judge Sadler, quickly jumps on the Judge Albee Judicial Rogue Band Wagon, and once again follows her lead.  Judge Sadler just simply gives custody of Ms. Doherty's son to a father and his girlfriend, who like Mr. McLlarky, last month, ended up in court for domestic Violence issues, and were each court ordered to pay a $500 fine and go to anger management classes.  Like Judge Albee, Judge Sadler clearly just simply turned custody over to the father based on the one true evidence that she clarified in court, when she said "He said ..she said.. will someone get me some evidence!?!" 

• Gee, "I don't know", do you think she might have her evidence now, as to who is telling the truth?  Another question to ask is, does the president of the United States proudly support New Hampshire's practices and belief that Domestic Violence "Benefits (children) and provides stability in their life."  And if so, is he practicing this belief with his own children? 

• Judge Sadler then also gives custody to Ms. Doherty's other son to his grandmother.  A woman who made visitations to her boyfriend in prison, who was there for molesting her own son.  I'll say it once again, who really needs the Psychological Evaluation and Parenting Assessment now?

• Judge Sadler ordered child support, that clearly is only additional subsidized income, needed to pay for any court fines and penalties, that a grandmother, a father and his girlfriend might now incur, to remain out of jail. Clearly it's not going to any needs of the child. She can't have her court orders looking like a complete bad mistake, now can she.  A subsidized income becomes a necessity to remain out of jail, when you've been awarded custody of your child, by the same judicial system who has also arrested and charged you with Domestic Violence. 

• Let me clarify that Jamie Doherty has no record of arrests for domestic violence, dealing drugs or has ever had the Department of Child Youth and Family Services knock at her door! This is the type of great parenting, whom NH's Judges like Albee and Sadler, just simply takes custody away from without cause. 

• Judge Albee now conveniently orders Ms. Doherty to now produce the records of the new custody court cases against her, or Ms. Doherty will no longer be permitted, to participate any further in these proceedings.   Ms. Doherty refused, and justifiably so.  Judge Albee now Defaults Ms. Doherty and denies her the right to further motion the courts on her parenting rights, or furthermore, for the safety of her child.  Ashes to Ashes, dust to dust, is what NH Justices clearly will do to NH's children! 

• Lets just clearly clarify that this truly is not Mr. McLlarky's fault, for NH's Judicial branch has supported his behavior for 6 years.  He once again gets a "a little tap" on the wrist, as one NH fraud committing GAL would put it, then  accepts a plea bargain with parole, and now pleads guilty to all charges.  Then he is only court ordered to take anger management classes!

• To Judge Albee, you saw and ignored the first 2009 psychological evaluation  on Mr. McLlarky and still purposely put a child in harms way!  What does it take NH?  The child's blood on your hands?  This is how NH Family Court works!

• On January 16, 2013 Judge Albee now signed an order granting Elwood McLlarky's parenting plan which stated that Ms. Doherty is capable of working 30 hours per week and making $11.00 per hour. Judge Albee used this non existing income to now calculate, and order Ms. Doherty to pay $71 per week in child support, and $57 per month in medical while Emily is already covered medically by the state.  However, it is unfortunate that Mr. McLlarky and the NH courts are not willing to share, this simple new found easy resolution to unemployment, with Ms. Doherty or others.  Let's just clarify that a consistency of arrests, bail, court fines and penalties, would most definitely require one to need, an additional income.  Unfortunately Judge Albee aims to please all of Mr. McLlarky's needs instead of Emily's.

The Conway Courthouse now also purposely withheld this latest order signed by Judge Albee on January 16, 2013 until the middle of March before even mailing it out to Ms. Doherty.  The postmark on the envelope will support this.  Ms. Doherty suddenly receives this court order a couple of weeks after she went public with her story.  They now purposely make her in the arrears for already 2 months. Judge Albee also ordered this knowingly on record that Ms. Doherty is still presently unemployed.  To think this is the Judicial Justice System that the majority of NH's politicians have sat back and proudly supported and bragged about for 35 years.  This clearly proves that Psychological Evaluations and Parenting Assessments truly need to be completed on the majority of NH's Politicians for clearly supporting child abuse in NH.  It's all in the records!

NEED I SAY MORE?

APPARENTLY YES!

And if nothing more is said, then you will know the truth has been purposely silenced!

 

It should never be forgotten on the evening of June 15, 2011, how Thomas James Ball was driven by the NH Family Court System to political suicide.  He calmly stood at the entrance of the Cheshire County Superior Courthouse, and doused himself with gasoline, then he set himself ablaze, after a decade of fighting the NH Family Court System.  Witnesses described how he burned to his death in complete silence, refusing help from several men. 

This is never the resolution, nor the answer.  But acknowledging the truth behind why it happened is.  NH's Judicial Branch needs to commit to change, to prevent any future unnecessary similar behavior, even death, clearly originated and inflicted, by the NH Justices in NH Family Courts!



,

NH's JUDGE PAMELA ALBEE, ANOTHER JUDGE GONE ROGUE PART 5

McLLARKY v DOHERTY

Child custody case on Conway NH

 



Well now NH, when your right, your right! Hell have no fury on a child like a scorned NH Judge! Once again, Judge Albee's knowledge and predictions of the future is correct, and this case has now moved past, yet another Domestic Violence arrest. 

To All NH politicians, try not to choke so hard the next time you tell the state your "tough on crime." You most certainly cannot prove it by 9 year old Emily, who by the grace of god, has endured and survived it for six years!

SPEAK UP! HOST KEVIN AVARD SPEAKS WITH JAMIE DOHERTY

McLLARKY v DOHERTY

Child Custody case in Conway NH

 

Hear Jamie Doherty tell her story to host Kevin Avard on Speak Up NH, of a mother tormented, by NH's very own Judge Pamela Albee!  http://youtu.be/CIOXB21sBMY


 

NH's JUDGE PAMELA ALBEE, ANOTHER JUDGE GONE ROGUE PART 4

McLLARKY v DOHERTY
Child Custody  in Conway NH

Since this custody case began in 2007, Mrs. Hamilton explained that Judge Albee has now ruled over Elwood and Margaret McLlarky's divorce, has heard their multiple hearings on Domestic Violence Petition's against one another.  She even granted Mr. McLlarky an Order of Protection against Margaret McLlarky, but then later on grants this same woman, his ex-wife, a drug dealer paroled from prison, guardianship of Mr. McLlarky and Ms Doherty's daughter, when Mr. McLlarky was arrested and in prison for performing strangulation by the throat on Ms McClarky until she could no longer breath.  Hit her with a closed fist.  Made her get down on her hands and knees to tell him who she was having an affair with.  And finally, last but never shall be the least, verbally stated, "If you ever do that again, I will (blank) KILL YOU!"  This was in July of 2012.  Yes, the child was indeed in the home at the time of these events.  No one representing the law, felt it necessary to contact the Guardian Ad Litem, or the child's mother, to inform them of Mr. McLlarky's latest arrest!

On March 28, 2013 a judge will hear Mr. McLlarky's most recent trial of indictments and will very possibly prove how accurate Judge Albee's crystal ball truly is, when she told Ms. Doherty in a courtroom, "Nothing will become of it!"  How many of you care to lay any odds that NH's Judge Albee's crystal ball and prediction is actually wrong?  You now have your evidence as to how NH Justice works!   If Judge Albee is wrong, will she now give custody of the assailant's child to his victim or the child's mother?  Your guess will be as good as mine!  I am willing to say neither, and believe that Judge Albee's crystal ball prediction's will prevail once again.  They apparently come true quite often.  On November 19, 2010 Judge Albee declared war in a courtroom, on Ms. Doherty.  She told her, "This has now become a war between you and I!"  Apparently she meant that literally.  I was there and heard this declaration myself.  What's one more young victim, a casualty of war, by the hands of NH's Judicial Branch.  It's just simply a war NH, as clearly stated by one NH Judge! 
 

NEED I SAY MORE?

APPARENTLY SO!

 



 

NH's JUDGE PAMELA ALBEE, ANOTHER JUDGE GONE ROGUE PART 3

PART 3

Elwood McLlarky v Jamie Doherty

What one true professional saw in 7 months, was completely apparent and ignore by NH's very own Judge Albee, for six years now.  In the following Motion For Expedited Hearing submitted on June 13, 2011 to the courts, by the second GAL to represent (the child), stated this:

"1. (GAL) was appointed as Guardian ad Litem for (the child) on November29, 2010.

2. Pursuant to the Order on November 19, 2010 Hearing, "the court expects the substitute GAL to address a plan for a period of reintroduction of (the child) to Ms. Doherty.

3. The GAL's "Reunification Plan" included in the Summary Report of the Guardian ad Litem was adopted in full, and incorporated as a further order of the court on May 27, 2011.

4. The GAL has observed that (the child) response to this reunification plan has been extremely positive.

5. Jamie Doherty has been fully compliant with all phases of the reunification plan to date.

6. The GAL has maintained a professional contact with (the child's) therapist, Mary Crossdale by telephone and written communication. The GAL attended and observed the first family session with (the child) and her mother on June 7, 2011.

7. The GAL had a lengthy phone conversation with Mary Crossdale on June 10, 2011. Mary Crossdale stated that she was very pleased with the family session, and that both (the child) and Jamie were "beaming." The GAL asked Ms. Crossdale if she had seen any "red flags" with regard to Jamie Doherty during the session. Ms. Crossdale replied that she had not seen any red flags about Ms. Doherty during the session.

8. The GAL received a very disturbing email from Elwood McLlarky's email account that was signed "Elwood B. McLlarky" and dated June 9, 2011. (see Exhibit A)

9. This email contains numerous false statements.

10. This email contains personal and professional attacks against the GAL that are completely without merit.

11. The GAL has advised Elwood and Maggie McLlarky repeatedly to attend therapy to help them adjust emotionally to the Court Ordered reunification plan.

12. The GAL confirmed with staff at Northern Human Services that Elwood McLlarky last attended a therapy session on September 20, 2010 with Vicki Harlow. Northern Human Services staff reported that Elwood McLlarky was discharged from services on February 3, 2010. According to their records, Elwood McLlarky has not attended therapy since he was discharged on February 3, 2011.

14. The GAL is of the opinion that the content of the recent email to the GAL strongly suggests that Elwood McLlarky is struggling with the Court Ordered reunification plan, and is inappropriately taking his frustrations out on the GAL, rather than processing his feelings in therapy.

 

15. The GAL has concerns that, if Elwood McLlarky does not process his feelings about the Court Ordered reunification plan in therapy, Mr. McLlarky may be at risk of displaying negative behaviors in the home while (the child) is present.

WHEREFORE, the Guardian ad litem respectfully moves the Honorable Court to:

A. Grant the GAL'S Motion for Expedited Hearing.

B. Schedule a one hour expedited Hearing in this matter as soon as the docket permits to address the GAL's concerns regarding Elwood McLlarky's lack of attendance at therapy since 2010, in light of the email to the GAL dated June 9, 2011."

Judge Albee held a hearing on this motion, and made no ruling on all that was said, by the second GAL of her choice.  This became Judge Albee's pattern in this case.  Many Motions ignored with no rulings on pleadings for a child's life and safety.  Judge Albee has dismissed any and all evidence that disputes her decisions, or proved her wrong doings in this case.  Including every non professional, and every licensed professional.  Judge Albee's final ruling in this case will end like all NH Family Court rulings, ashes to ashes, dust to to dust, is all the respect NH's Justices will ever give to a child's life.

 

CASE HISTORY

PURSUANT TO PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2ND GUARDIAN AD LITEM

 

"Pursuant to the order on Ex Parte Motion dated September 24, 2007 Elwood McLlarky was granted temporary sole decision-making and residential responsibilities for (the child).  The court further ordered that Mr. McLlarky could allow Jamie Doherty to have parenting time with (the child) as [he agreed], as long as her parenting time did not interfere with (the child's) day school program."

"On October 16, 2007 Tina Craig was appointed as Guardian Ad Litem for (the child)."

"On November, 2007 Elwood McLlarky submitted an Ex Parte Motion in which he [alleged]  that Jamie Doherty had posted nude pics of (the child) making inappropriate poses online on her My space web site."  He did not have this alleged evidence that he only spoke of, to submit to the courts.  Once again NH courts only rules on hearsay and no evidence!

"Pursuant to the Order on Ex Parte Motion dated November 26, 2007 ...Jamie Doherty was (Now) ordered to (possibly self incriminate herself) provide GAL (Tina Craig) and both parties attorneys the opportunity to see the images posted on her web site, and ultimately, removed the images from her MySpace page.  Jamie Doherty's parenting time was to be supervised, with two visits to be held between  November 26, 2007 and the date of the hearing on the ex parte scheduled December 6, 2007"  Remember Part 1?  All pictures were cleared of any wrong doing by both law enforcement and child advocacy groups, and Mr. McLlarky was even warned about the consequences for filing false statements, to any private or government agencies, for the sole purpose of his custody battle.

"Hearing on the ex parte motion was held on December 6, 2007."

"Pursuant to the Ex Parte Order  dated December 10,2007 Jamie Doherty's parenting time would continued to be supervised, (Now) pending her completion of the Child Impact Seminar and  enrollment in parenting classes...Ms. Doherty was also granted parenting time with (the child) on Christmas Day from 10:00am to 6:00pm., provided the maternal grandmother was present to supervise the visit...Jamie Doherty also was ordered to enroll in counseling. Finally, Tina Craig was granted the authority to terminate the order for supervised visits once Ms. Doherty completed the Child Impact Seminar and enrolled in a parenting class, as long as she determined that (the child) was not  at risk of being exposed to discussion of the issues between her parents."  The court implies on record another false statement, that Ms. Doherty was talking about the father with the child.  The court never documented any evidence that this issue even existed. 

NH's Judge Albee chose to risk and expose an innocent child to the evidence in part 2 before ever willing to admit she actually was wrong.  What is most apparent, is her evident decision to ignore all signs,  and to continue to subject a innocent child to irreparable harm.  Even more interesting is the following comment noted by the court themselves, noted by the 2nd GAL, proving that NH Courts, will apparently even ignore their own findings!

"According to the Status Conference Order dated January 29, 2008...The Court noted its concern that "Mr. McLlarky's hyper vigilance regarding Ms Doherty's actions may be interfering with his ability to foster a quality relationship between (the child)  and her mother.  As a result, Elwood McLlarky was ordered to "engage in counseling which will assist him in being able to co-parent with Ms. Doherty and to value her role in (the child's) life."   The very same counseling that Judge Albee later told Ms Doherty, that Mr. McLlarky substantiated a "good reason" for now deciding when to stop therapy on his own. But when asked to refresh Ms. Doherty's memory as to what that "good reason" was?  Judge Albee's only response is, and I quote, "I DON'T KNOW!!!"  This is what Article 73a has done for NH!  Are these truly the hands you would want deciding your own child's life?

"According to the Further Status Conference Order dated February 27, 2008 Jamie Doherty's Attorney reported that his client had "completed the Child Impact Seminar", attended "First Appearance via video", enrolled in counseling which will likely have a medical component", "enrolled in  a parenting education class", and was meeting with Christine Dias for therapeutic parenting supervision."   No matter how many tasks that Ms. Doherty completes, that is requested by this court, it will never be good enough!  "So shall suffer the little children" is a saying, not a law NH!

ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST IS WHAT NH IS WILLING TO DO TO OUR CHILDREN!!!

NEED I SAY MORE?

APPARENTLY YES! 

NH's JUDGE PAMELA ALBEE, ANOTHER JUDGE GONE ROGUE Part 2

PART 2
Elwood McLlarky v Jamie Doherty

Judge Albee once stated that this case was the longest ever to come through the Conway NH Courts, but clearly through no ones fault but her own. Lets fast forward. Numerous counts of errors on the courts behalf were clearly being substantiated. Tina Craig was now dismissed due to her non certification status. At the end of 2010 a new Guardian Ad Litem was appointed, a genuine "NH Board Certified GAL", once again, only of Judge Albee's choice. However, before the new GAL, Ms. Doherty was separated and never permitted to see or speak with her daughter for one year. This is NH family Court!

The following are statements that the second GAL wrote in her Summary Report submitted May 26, 2011 to Judge Albee. What one true professional saw in a few months, supports what one NH Judge could not see in 5 years. How a NH Judge rules by the See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak no Evil rule called "Article 73-a," and not by legislative state or federal laws, let alone, the Constitution of the United States of America!

 

STATEMENTS IN "SUMMARY OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM REPORT" FOR

McCLlARKY V DOHERTY

 

*"Ms. Doherty sent a variety of gifts for (the child) in her package. She included a ballerina bear, writing that when (the child) was little she took ballet lessons, and always wanted to be a ballerina. Ms. Doherty also wrote, "and of course you were the most beautiful one of all." Ms. Doherty sent a fairy wand with a mesh flower on the end, and a large mesh butterfly. Also included was a decorated wooden sign that said "twinkle twinkle little star, do you know how loved you are?" Ms. Doherty wrote in her second letter, "do you remember when we would sing, "twinkle twinkle little (sic) star together?" Emily enjoyed the ballerina bear, and playing with the fairy wand. She indicated that she wanted the butterfly to go in her bedroom. (the child) asked her father what she could do with the wooden sign. He responded that she could hang it on the wall in her bedroom."

"(the child) also enjoyed seeing all the family photographs. Ms. Doherty had labeled each photo on back to identify each person in the picture. (The child) recognized almost everyone in the photo's, and talked about them quit a bit. She especially enjoyed seeing photos of her mother, half brothers, and her maternal grandmother, Colleen Hamilton. Mr. McLlarky was very supportive during the photo sharing time with (the child)."

 

*"The GAL has been extremely pleased with the progress made in this case to date. Jamie Doherty has been in full compliant with virtually every request this GAL has made of her."

*"Elwood reported to the GAL that since Jamie has been back in (the child's) life, (the child) has been doing exceptionally well. The child's therapist reported the same observation."

*"(The child) has been attending regular counseling sessions at Northern Human Services with her therapist Mary Crossdale."

*"The GAL spoke to (the child's) therapist on May 11, 2011. She confirmed that the child has been very excited about recent contact with her mother. She has reported that (the child) has talked very favorably to her about receiving cards, letters, and gifts from her mother to date"

*"According to the therapist, (the child) has expressed a keen desire to start to have face to face visits with her mother. She stated that the child has told her that her ultimate desire is to spend time with her mother that is unsupervised."

*"...In addition Maggie and Elwood have experienced some domestic issues during their relationship that led to police involvement in the past."

During this custody battle Mr. McLlarky lived with Ms. McLlarky who went from roommate, to girlfriend, to wife, became mother of his child, to divorced, back to now live in girlfriend/mother of his child.

Some Reports of domestic violence History and others

On 6/15/08 The police were called to Mr. McLlarky's residence for domestic violence. The police report states, Maggie has been rude to his daughter and he cannot stand it any longer. Mr. McLlarky said he just let Maggie come back after they took a break for a while. Tina Craig, the uncertified GAL at the time said, "That's in the past we're moving forward." Really? Well let's just see about that!

On 7/29/08, Mr. McLlarky called police and said his wife hit him and then had to have her removed.

On 7/30/08, Mr. McLlarky also filed a Domestic Violence petition against Maggie McLlarky. He then contacted her probation officer stating that Ms. McLlarky has demonstrated substance abuse and physical violence in the same home where his daughter lives. He also filed a Temporary Order Of Protection, for which low and behold, was granted by the Honorable Judge Albee herself!

On 12/22/04, the Sun Journal published, "CONCORD, NH (AP) -A 31 year old Manchester woman has been sentenced in federal court on drug charges. She pleaded guilty in September to possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it and to using the mail to commit a controlled substance offense...Federal prosecutors charged her, her sister and a third person with intending to distribute more than 47 grams of the drug in April. They said the entire scheme involved between 200 and 300 grams. Her sister Margaret Barcus (now McLlarky) of Pittsfield, was sentenced Monday to 33 months in prison and three years probation after her release."

Ms. McLlarky has also filed Domestic Violence petitions against Mr. McLlarky stating he demonstrated physical violence.

*"...The GAL has observed that Elwood McLlarky appears to be struggling with the idea that Jamie Doherty eventually will achieve unsupervised parenting time. On May 7, 2011, Elwood McLlarky told the GAL that, Maggie also was struggling with the same issues."

*"Phase IV: Jamie will exercises at least 3 parenting time sessions in the Conway NH area with (the child), Supervised by GAL. Phase IV shall begin May 26, 2011 after consulting with the parents. The visits will accommodate the GAL's availability as well as (the Child's) school schedule. (The child) will not attend the After School Program on days she has visits with her mother. Ms. Doherty's mother, Colleen Hamilton, shall be designated driver for all parenting time in Conway. The GAL will determine when Phase IV will end and Phase V will begin."

There has always been proof of people making positive changes to their lives but then there are those who don't. So now lets fast forward to 2012. Mr. Elwood McLlarky was now arrested and indicted for:

1. Class B Felony - For strangling Maggie McLlarky until she could not breath.
2. Class A Misdemeanor - For throwing a prescription pill bottle at Maggie McLlarky's head and leaving a mark.
3. Class A Misdemeanor - For punching her with a closed fist.
4. Class A Misdemeanor - For Making Ms. McLlarky get down on her hands and knees and tell him who she was having an affair with.
5. Class A Misdemeanor - For verbally threatening Ms. McLlarky stating, "If you ever do this again I will (blank) kill you!"

 Mr. McLlarky plead not guilty on all counts and is awaiting trial.

Maggie McLlarky then files an emergency Ex Parte for temporary guardianship of Mr. McLlarky and Ms. Doherty's daughter stating, "Jamie's where-abouts unknown", and there was no reachable legal guardian for the child in case of an emergency. The court immediately grants her motion, when they themselves have Ms. Doherty's address and contact phone number on record for the ongoing custody case.

Meanwhile Ms. Doherty said she had been trying for weeks to get a hold of Mr. McLlarky with no answer. Ms. Doherty became concerned and decided to call the Conway Courthouse, to see if Mr. McLlarky filed any new motions concerning their daughter. That's when she was told that Mr. McLlarky was in jail and that Maggie McLlarky now has guardianship over her daughter.

During the follow up Guardianship Hearing, Maggie McLlarky told Judge Albee, that Jay Smith from DCYF, had no problems with her being guardian to Ms. Doherty's daughter. However, Ms. Doherty disagreed. Judge Albee then asked, "Where is DCYF?" She then told the court clerk to get DCYF on the phone. When the court clerk told Judge Albee that DCYF is on their way, Judge Albee's immediate reaction was, "Never mind, we don't need her!" Judge Albee Then also stated that "a guardianship was no longer necessary now that Mr. McClarky was no longer incarcerated!" Yep, straight from the horses mouth!  The child still remains in Mr. McLlarky's custody?  When Ms. Doherty later called DCYF to speak with Jay Smith, she was now told that Jay Smith no longer works there and that this case was now closed!   

When Ms. Doherty explained the recent indictments against Mr. McLlarky, to Judge Albee, at the Guardianship Hearing, Judge Albee's only response to it was, "this is out of his character!" Ms. Doherty said, she told Judge Albee that she feared for her daughters safety after this incident, because she knew Mr. McLlarky had kept guns in his home. When Judge Albee asked Mr. McLlarky if he has guns, he responded "No." He then told her that he gave one to his brother and the other to a friend. Judge Albee then simply turned to Ms. Doherty and asks her, "does that answer satisfy you?"

Seriously? Do you really have to ask why gun control has to be better enforced? Next, we will be hearing that NH just hands them out as party favors!

Judge Albee now decides to suddenly once again, dismiss the second GAL of her choice , with no explanation as to why, only stating that the GAL is no longer needed in this case.  She then orders another mediation to be scheduled with now once again, a new mediator, to now work out a new parenting plan that could be put into place yet again?

Remember, the second GAL of judge Albee's choice was already a NH Board Certified GAL, who already is a mediator, who already submitted a parenting plan, already approved by the court. She also already begun a re-unifiction between mother and child that was in progress, that clearly had the approval from the child's therapist! Ms. Doherty also stated that the GAL, was never contacted or told about Mr. McLlarky's arrest, which supports the fact, that Maggie McLlarky did not make any responsible attempts to contact the necessary people regarding the incident. Clearly all phone records will support who did what, and when, if they have nothing to hide!

Mrs. Doherty also said, that the GAL knew the importance to see this case through for the sake of her daughter, and that the GAL even told Judge Albee, she will continue to work on this case Pro Bono when the GAL Funds ran out. The GAL now informed Ms. Doherty that she will no longer be capable to work on this case since Judge Albee has now dismissed and removed her without merit.

Mrs. Hamilton explained that when Ms. Doherty demanded Judge Albee to permit her to see her daughter, to see if she was alright,  Judge Albee's response was, "Maggie now is guardian, you have to ask her permission." Ms. Doherty immediately turned to face Ms. McLlarky, then asked her permission to see her daughter. Ms. McLlarky just calmly tells Ms. Doherty, "not today, because she already has plans to be with her brother."

Ms. Doherty has not seen her daughter since December 2012, nor has she been allowed to speak to her daughter for the past month. Clearly Judge Albee has no problems in participating and supporting in child abuse and abandonment. Yes people, you are no longer in NH anymore, nor have you been fortunate enough to even land in OZ, but have now clearly landed in NH's very own Twilight Zone, called the NH Judicial Branch, enforcing the almighty Articlce 73-a, anything but the law!

NEED I SAY MORE?

YOU DON'T REALLY THINK THAT WAS ALL OF IT NOW, DO YOU?