Petition 14: the Dionne Petition

Additional commentary by Timothy Horrigan
(member of the House Petitions & Redress Committee)

See Also:

Jeannette Dionne filed a similar petition in 2010, but this one has a lot more grievances in it. This time, she seems to be naming every official involved in any way with her case. Previously, her complaints were focused on one individual, Guardian Ad Litem (and Attorney) Lynn Abbey. Strictly speaking, Lynn Abbey doesn't exist: the petitioner is actually referring to Lynn Aaby, an Hampton, NH-based attorney who happens to be the first entry in the official directory of certified GALs. This is a drafting error by the sponsors, which happens to be a repeat of an earlier drafting error. This error is not Ms. Dionne's fault.

I am not sure what the basic dispute is about even after almost 6 hours of testimony, but I think I can classify this one under the "contentious child custody case" rubric.



PETITION 14

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

TO: The Honorable House of Representatives

FROM: Petitioner Representative Daniel C. Itse, Rockingham 9

DATE: August 16, 2011

SUBJECT: Grievance of Jeanette Dionne

Your Petitioner Representative Itse on behalf of Jeanette Dionne hereinafter presents the following summary of her grievance and invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable House of Representatives pursuant to Articles 31 and 32 to bring about redress:

Wherefore, your Petitioner prays that the House of Representatives consider this proposed remedy:

  1. Amend the laws of the State so that individuals can be held criminally liable for not recusing themselves from matters before the court when there are conflicts of interest that may materially affect the outcome.

  2. Amend the laws of the State so that permitting perjury in judicial proceedings is official oppression.

Respectfully submitted by Petitioner Representative Itse on Behalf of Jeanette Dionne.





I am not sure what the point of the proposed remedies is. Perjury (and the subornation of perjury) may not be covered by the "official oppression" statutes— but perjury is already highly illegal. (Ironically, "official oppression" is just a misdemeanour, while perjury is a felony.)

Failing to disclose a conflict of interest when it may materially effect a court case is also illegal. I suppose the point may be to stiffen the penalties for perjury and for failing to disclose conflicts of interest. But is the petition really the proper vehicle for considering those issues?

I am not sure how you can make it a crime to "permit" perjury. A judge is not directly responsible for what witnesses or other parties say in the courtroom. They can say whatever they want to say, as long they follow court procedure. If the testimony is proven to be perjurious, there are serious consequences: perjury is (like I already said) a big-time felony.

It is pretty hard to distinguish perjurious testimony from other incorrect testimony. People can be acting in good faith and can be trying to tell the truth while still remembering things incorrectly, forgetting things, misinterpreting the facts, choosing the wrong words, referring to incorrect documentation, etc.

I hope they don't extend the proposed law to the House Redress Committee. We hear all sorts of incorrect statements during our proceedings, most of them inadvertent, but some of them not so inadvertent. I would hate for us to be subject to prosecution just for sitting there and politely listening to someone's else's incorrect statements.


In advance of the initial October 27, 2011 hearing, Ms. Dionne prepared a detailed petition summary. In September 2012, I decided reluctantly to take it down, to protect the privacy and reputations of everyone involved, including Ms. Dionne herself. That said, I would still like to make a couple of comments:

  1. No one has been convicted or even charged with perjury as a result of her case.

  2. A familiar name from Petition #34 (the Shepard Petition) turned up in the Dionne case. Attorney Keri J. Marshall was Ms. Dionne's counsel for a while, until Ms. Dionne fired her. The Redress committee never found out exactly why Ms. Marshall was fired, although (unlike Mr. Shepard) Ms. Dionne alleged no specific wrongdoing. Attorney Marshall shared a joint law practice with Lynn Aaby for a few years in the mid-00's, around the same time the events behind Ms. Dionne's petition happened. For whatever reason that fact was never mentioned by Ms. Dionne, although we did learn that Attorneys Marshall and Aaby shared a paralegal.

Ms. Dionne returned in June 2012 and repeated her entire presentation. She was none too pleased to see me since I gave her a rather hard time the first time around. She brushed aside several significant unanswered questions by claiming they were "irrelevant." The next week the following pair of reports appeared in the June 22, 2012 House Calendar:

PETITION #14 grievance of Jeanette Dionne.

MAJORITY

Grievance Founded With Recommendations.


Committee Majority Findings:

Having reviewed the testimony and documents, and having received no response from any of the involved officials or their representatives, despite invitations to so provide, the Committee concludes:

  1. that the Brentwood Family Division wrongfully considered and granted an ex parte motion premised purely on hearsay of the father concerning, not anything the Petitioner mother had done, but what she might do, a standard which if applied uniformly would justify jailing every citizen of the State of New Hampshire;

  2. that the Marital Master held a hearing without providing the statutory 10 day notice, and that the Court Clerk failed to provide statutory notice to the Petitioner of a hearing in which she was a material party;

  3. that the Guardian ad Litem did not promptly disclose and disqualify herself by reason of a conflict of interest based upon her prior representation of the live-in girlfriend of the father of Petitioner's children, whose input could be expected to be and in fact was material to the parenting plan eventually adopted;

  4. that the Marital Master and supervising Judge failed in their responsibility to protect the public from conflicted attorneys by not removing the conflicted Guardian ad Litem from the case as soon as her conflict was finally disclosed;

  5. that the Marital Master and supervising Judge failed to hold the Guardian ad Litem accountable for evident perjury when she represented that she had been unaware of the conflict of interest; and

  6. that the Judicial Conduct Committee failed to sanction the Marital Master or supervising Judge for their failure to address the Guardian ad Litem's conflict of interest issue with the order of disqualification it obviously required.


Recommendations

The troubling issues raised in this Petition should be included with others by which evidence is accumulating to show serious deficiencies in the administration, investigation and adjudication of Family Division cases. 


Vote 9-2.

Rep. Greg Sorg for the Majority of the Committee

MINORITY

Grievance Unfounded.


Committee Minority Findings:

The Minority is very aware of the stressful nature of divorce and the issues of child rearing that arise from those proceedings.  Our recommendation to the Family Court Division is that the presiding judge allocate additional time for all parties to become familiar with the implications and consequences of the decisions in an effort to lessen misunderstanding and potential future conflict.  We also recognize there are time and financial pressures on the entire system.  However, the court must do its utmost to ensure that all timelines are adhered to so that each party has proper time to prepare for appearances. 

Rep. Sandra B. Keans for the Minority of the Committee



Rep. Kevin Avard was bent out of shape by the fact that the petition failed to get a unanimous decision. He posted an earlier draft of the Majority Report on his blog:

6/12 /2012

By: Kevin Avard

Founded with Recommendation

The house Committee of redress of grievances , having received the testimony and documents, and having received no response from any of the involved officials or their representatives concludes that the Brentwood family court wrongfully allowed a motion for "pre-contempt" which is a nonexistent abuse; That Marital Master Pam Kelly held a hearing without providing a 10 day notice,and that the Brentwood family court also failed to provide statutory notice of a hearing regard to the petitioner.

It also found that (GAL) guardian ad litem Attorney Lynn Abbey,did not disclose and intentionally misrepresented her relationship to the father of the petitioner's children and was uncorrected by the court when challenged and that the (PCC) professional conducts committee failed to hold GAL Lynn Abbey accountable for such ethics violations when informed.

furthermore the Committee found Master Luneau failed to hold Lynn Abbey accountable for perjury when she misrepresented that she was unaware of the conflict of interest. Finally, the committee find the (JCC) judicial Conduct Committee failed to oversee lawbreaking by a judge leaving no one for the alleged victim to turn to but the house and the redress and/or Impeachment process.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Amend the laws of the State so that permitting perjury in judicial proceedings shall be recognized as official oppression by the judge and so that individuals can be held criminally liable for not recusing themselves from matter before the court when there are conflicts of interest that may materially affect the outcome.









2011 House Petitions:




See Also:



Home

The Forgotten Liars

2011 Session