Petition 28: the Breton Petition

Additional commentary by Timothy Horrigan

(member of the House Petitions & Redress Committee)

See also:





PETITION 28
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

TO: The Honorable House of Representatives
FROM: Petitioner Representative John Hikel, Hillsborough 7
DATE: October 19, 2011
SUBJECT: Grievance of Ghislain Breton

Your Petitioner, Representative Hikel on behalf of Ghislain Breton and for the citizens of New Hampshire who may likewise be affected, hereinafter presents the following summary of his grievances involving the New Hampshire House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, the Superintendent of the Merrimack County House of Corrections, and various New Hampshire Judges and Guardians ad Litem and invokes the' constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable House of Representatives pursuant to said Articles 31 and 32 to bring about redress:

Grievance involving:

  1. Guardians ad litem Judith Roman and Susan Decker for breach of guardian ad litem stipulations

  2. Attorney Robert Carey for lying to the grand jury alleging witness tampering and intervention with Mr. Breton's private contract with Judith Roman.

  3. Judge Robert Lynn for intervention in Mr. Breton's private contract with Judith Roman; and for denying Mr. Breton the following rights under the New Hampshire Constitution: the right to due Process and a trial by jury under Part 1, Article 20, the right to pretrial counsel and trial counsel under Part 1, Article 15 and the right to reasonable bail for an alleged victimless crime under Part 1, Article 33.

  4. Judge James Duggan for intervention in Mr. Breton's private contract with Judith Roman; for denying Mr. Breton of the following rights under the New Hampshire Constitution: the right to pretrial counsel and trial counsel under Part 1, Article 15, the right to a speedy trial within 120 days, the right to proportional punishment for an alleged victimless crime under Part 1, Article 18, the right to a trial by qualified jurors under Part 1, Article 21; and for incarcerating Mr. Breton for 2 years, including a 21 year suspended sentence, and 5 years of probation after illegal hearings.

  5. Judge Kathleen McGuire for denying Mr. Breton an evidentiary hearing, for issuing a protective order against Mr. Breton without allowing said evidentiary hearing, and, after the protective order's expiration, for issuing another similar order based upon allegations preceding the first order.

  6. Former Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, Representative Terie Norelli, New Hampshire House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman David Cote, and all New Hampshire House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Members for denying Mr. Breton his right to a petition for redress of grievance under Part First, Articles 31 and 32 of the New Hampshire Constitution by voting HB 1543-FN of the 2008 legislative session inexpedient to legislate.

  7. Superintendent of the Merrimack County House of Corrections for denying Mr. Breton his rights to access the law library and his right to counsel.

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

  1. Introduce legislation requiring all testimony in all protective order hearings to be given under oath under the pains and penalties of perjury.

  2. Investigate the initiation of impeachment proceedings for all judges involved.

  3. Introduce legislation to require the courts to actively protect a litigants pro se rights

  4. Introduce legislation to require that incarcerated pro se litigants have access to the law library and legal research on the Internet via Lexis/Nexis or some other legal database, and access 'to materials, flash drives, and photocopies of legal materials, as needed.

Respectfully Submitted by Petitioner Representative Hikel on Behalf of Ghislain Breton and the citizens of New Hampshire.

October 19, 2011




At his February 7, 2012, initial hearing, Mr. Breton submitted the following "short short summary" of his case. I haven't checked all the names, but one of them is wrong: "TERRI NORELLI" is in fact "Terie Norelli" (as shown correctly above):

Grievance Petition #28

February 7th , 2012

Petition for the Redress of Ghislain "Gus" Breton's Grievances



I'll begin my story in January of 2002 when my ex-wife accused me of threatening her with my 9mm handgun on Saturday the 26th and then accused me the following day Sunday the 27th of pulling her arm into the car, putting the window up, and dragging her 400 feet down the road.

The following Monday, January 28th 2002, my ex-wife went to the Concord District court and with the help of a Domestic Violence Advocate, successfully secured for herself a Restraining Order.

On Monday, January 28th of 2002 at about 5pm I got pulled over by a State Trooper just off of Pleasant Street here in Concord so he could serve me with a restraining order.

Thankfully, this State Trooper gave me a very clear warning to not let my ex-wife talk me into meeting with her for any reason whatsoever because it would be a set up. He told me to be extremely careful…so… I ignored her phone calls for the next few days.

The following weekend my ex-wife called to see if I wanted to watch my daughters because they missed me.

I took that opportunity to inform my ex-wife that the guns had been picked up by the Auburn Police Dept. and not the Bow Police where we lived because I had removed all the guns from the house over a month prior to the alleged incident.

I informed her that our former neighbors had been holding onto the guns and would be testifying that the guns were in their possession for weeks prior to the day she claimed that I had threatened her with one of them.

I also informed her at that time that I was planning to subpoena her friends to testify on my behalf regarding the "dragging" part of her claim.

I asked her how she was going to explain being dragged by a car down the road for 100 feet more than the length of a football field without sustaining any injuries whatsoever.

I told her she was facing perjury charges and I believe she then found it inexpedient to pursue the charges. She asked the Court to vacate the Order the following week.

JUDITH ROMAN was subsequently hired via a contract she had drawn up explaining what she was going to do for my family and how much she was going to charge to do it. JUDITH ROMAN absolutely failed to do the job she was contracted to do.



By 2004 my level of frustration had grown to immense proportions. I had not seen my 2 oldest girls in well over a year. I felt time was escaping me. I felt the fact that I was not seeing my two oldest girls was quickly becoming a permanent reality.

At that point I decided to use what is now labeled as UCC process as a form of Common Law Injunction so that I could stop the courts from injuring my children any further.

I figured I had nothing to loose, I was convinced that, at worse, if this UCC process was not a viable Court strategy that the Court would once again just ignore me.

This particular UCC process had to do with Common Law Trademarks. Unfortunately for me the court took me much more seriously than I ever anticipated.



  1. On March 17th, 2004, at a hearing regarding JUDITH ROMANS debt to me, ROBERT J. LYNN then Chief Justice of the superior courts in New Hampshire heard Guardian Ad Litem JUDITH ROMAN testify that her friend, a Copyright Attorney, had reviewed the NON-Statutory Common Law Contract I had with her and had determined it to be valid.

    1. At that hearing I demanded all of my rights at all times, including my right to time …and … I specifically stated that I did not waive any of my rights at any time.

    2. Despite hearing attorney JUDITH ROMANs testimony validating my Trademark Contract with her, Judge LYNN proceeded to grant this Guardian Ad Litem the relief, which she sought from Judge LYNNs court.

      1. This BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES type of Court Order by Judge LYNN was a direct violation of his Oath of Office.

        1. His order violated the Article I, section 9 "Bill of Attainder" clause of the United States Constitution.

    3. On March 17th, 2004, justice LYNN also violated my Due Process Rights by ordering me to release my collateral interest in GAL JUDITH ROMANs property.

  2. On March 19th of 2004, ROBERT CARY and his team from the Attorney Generals office presented false and misleading evidence to the Grand Jury. This AG Prosecutor failed to disclose to the Grand Jury that I had a Common Law Trademark and Contract, which is only subject to LAW and not Statutes.

      1. In doing so Judge LYNN violated my Common Law liberty to contract as secured by Article I section 10 of the Constitution of the united States of America

  3. Judge LYNN, without my consent, scheduled a follow-up hearing in regards to the release of my collateral interest in attorney ROMANs property, on Monday, March 22nd 2004, at 8am. I was immediately arrested by the Sheriffs Dept when I showed up for that scheduled hearing before CHIEF JUSTICE LYNN

  4. On Monday, March 22nd 2004, at about 8:30am, under threat and severe duress I was brought before Judge LYNNs court to be questioned in regards to whether or not I had complied with his March 17th Order to withdraw my Notice of Collateral paperwork from the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds.

    1. When Judge LYNN asked me if I had complied with his March 17th Order I told him that I reserved my right to answer that question before a Jury.

    2. He then asked the Court Clerk to check with the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds to see if I had complied with the order

    3. This AG prosecutor neglected to disclose that I had Common Law Enforcement Rights evidenced and secured by both RSA 349:11 and RSA 350-A: 11 to 14.

  5. Judge LYNN then proceeded with the indictment hearing. I then gave notice to Judge LYNN that my counsel Dan McGonigle and Joe Olson were present.

    1. CHIEF JUSTICE, ROBERT J. LYNN, then denied my right to the assistance of counsel for my defence in violation of my rights secured by both the 6th amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 15 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights.

  6. When Judge LYNN asked me how I pled to the charges, I informed him that I would not plead and confer Jurisdiction to the court. This statement caused CHIEF JUSTICE LYNN to slam his hand on his desk and boldly exclaimed "This Court Has Jurisdiction" in violation of my 5th Amendment Due Process Right at Common Law to challenge the Jurisdiction of HIS court.

  7. CHIEF JUSTICE LYNN, then denied me my Right to Equal Protection under the law by violating my Immunity from prosecution which is secured by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.

  8. ROBERT LYNN, without my consent, then set my BAIL at $25,000 dollars for a VICTIMLESS supposed CRIME. In doing so, Judge LYNN violated my Right to Reasonable Bail in direct violation of the 4th Article of the Bill of Rights of the united States of America which secures my Right to be secure from unreasonable seizure of his person.

  9. This Excessive Bail condition for a non-violent victimless allegation also violated my right to protection from excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment secured by the 8th amendment.

      1. Punishment was inflicted on me prior to any conviction. My right to freedom before conviction would have permited me the unhampered preparation of my defense with unfettered access to the assistane of my counsel.

  10. As of direct result of Judge LYNNs violations against me, I was brought to the "OLD" Boscawen County Jail that day. I was finger printed, quarantined for several days, and then brought into the Medium Security Block of that jail.

    1. That Jail Block I was put into was originally designed to hold no more than 16 inmates. There were only 16 cells which all measured about 7 x 12 feet and every one there used the same two stainless steel toilets and the same two extremely moldy showers.



To access the "LAW LIBRARY", an inmate had to put in a written request. It would usually take several days for a request to be granted.

Typically, without any notice, a guard would walk up to an inmate and let them know that they could go the "LAW LIBRARY" for the next hour. The inmate would then scramble to get his papers and 2-inch pencil so he could be brought to the "LAW LIBRARY".

I took almost 2 weeks of requests before I was allowed there my first time. When I got there I realized what a joke I had been allowed to witness. The "LAW LIBRARY" was a 10-foot by 12-foot concrete block room. This "LAW LIBRARY" and had several 7-foot tall bookshelves, a large 5' round old wooden table and a few chairs.

The "LAW LIBRARY" was not organized and at least 20% of all the books were moldy because they were stacked on the concrete floor.

Any information that an inmate might have wanted to study had to be hand printed by the inmate on loose papers for latter review.

If the smell of the mold had not been enough to keep me out of the "LAW LIBRARY" then the thought of having less than an hour to read and hand copy anything I might have accidentally found to be of use was certainly an effective deterrent. The "Merrimack County House Of Correction" knowingly violated my "right to having recourse to the laws for all injuries he may receive" as secured by Article 14 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights.

While I was at the "Merrimack County House Of Correction" in Boscawen, my counselors attempted to coordinate my defence through Dan McGonigle who was only allowed to visit me on 3 occasions. Upon Dan's 4th visit he was told that he would not be allowed to keep his appointment with me because he was not a New Hampshire BAR UNION MEMBER. This was a direct violation of my right to the assistance of counsel as enumerated in BOTH the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America and Article 15 of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights.

I was forced to access my counsel at great expense to my family by way of a payphone located in the Block I was kept in, which was located in the vicinity of the STAINLESS STEEL TABLES where these 30 –50 inmates played cards and dominoes and watched their very loud TV.

  1. In the spring of 2004, (maybe MAY 20th) while I was still a PRE-TRIAL detainee, my ex-wife filed papers at the Merrimack County Superior Court claiming that I was harassing her with court certified paperwork. Judge KATHLEEN MCGUIRE presided over the hearing.

    1. After my ex-wife stated her claim, Judge KATHLEEN MCGUIRE turned to me and asked me what I had to say about the matter. Before I could finish my first sentence she exclaimed, "I've heard this before" and ran out the back door before the bailiff could tell anyone to stand up.

    2. This was a violation of my due process right to an evidentiary hearing

    3. I was found guilty of send my ex-wife certified copies of my filings with the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds.

      1. I was now in possession of my second ever restraining order.

  2. At some point Judge LYNN sent a formal request to the SUPREME COURT informing them of his request for help in my case. His letter also stated something to the effect of "Mr. Breton has demanded all of his rights and time is running short"

    1. On March 22nd of 2004, I was in possession of the knowledge and confidence I needed for my defence. Every day I spent in jail caused me to loose a little of both until finally, over 4 months latter I was tried.

    2. On March 22nd of 2004, I had my choice of counsel present and ready to assist me.

  3. At some point I received a package from the Attorney Generals office. Within its pages was an offer to contract. It stated that if I was willing to allow ROBERT CARY to violate my right to a Trial by Jury, that he would reduce the charges and that I would only have to serve about 12 – 15 years in prison for claiming my COMMON LAW right to be justly compensated for the use of my property.

    1. I believe ROBERT CARY and his team knowingly violated my Miranda Right to not be intimidated into a GUILTY PLEA.

    2. I believe this is also a violation of the following Codes and Statutes, which ROBERT CARY and his team are subject to 18 USC 241 Conspiracy against rights.

    3. I believe ROBERT CARY and the others at the AG's office conspired with Judge LYNN and his Supremes to violate a multitude of both my Rights at Common Law and my Constitutionally enumerated Rights in violation of 18 USC 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law

  4. The first notice I recall having of SUPREME COURT Justice JAMES DUGGAN being assigned to my case is when I received a letter from Joe Hass that he had put an Amicus Curiae brief into the record to inform SUPREME COURT Justice JAMES DUGGAN that the Superior Court Clerk had set the trial date past the 120 day mark in violation of my New Hampshire Speedy Trial Rights.

    1. Justice JAMES DUGGAN responded to Joe's Amicus Curiae brief with a statement to the effect that if I had any concerned about my Right to a SPEEDY TRIAL that it was up to me to inform the court and not JOE.

  5. A few weeks latter I was brought back to Merrimack County Superior Court to pick a Jury for my "Trial".

    1. At that time I watched as they went through the sham process of picking out a jury of my peers.

      1. One of the jurors picked was a former Rhode Island Cop. He was allowed by my accusers to remain on "MY JURY" despite the obvious conflict of interest.

      2. This was a clear violation of both CARY and DUGGANs fiduciary responsibility to protect the public trust as evidenced by

  6. On the day prior to my trial an attorney I had never met came to talk to me in regards to Justice DUGGANs concern about my lack of counsel. He stated that Justice Duggan wanted him to be my "Stand By" counsel. I asked him many questions about my case and found him to be rather incompetent to stand trial and therefore declined Justice DUGGANS offer of "Representation.

  7. Justice JAMES DUGGAN chose to ignore the multitude of Affidavits and Demands on the record regarding the unlawful nature of these Administrative proceedings against me and proceeded with the JURY TRIAL in the last week of July 2004.

    1. This violated my right to a Judicial Hearing in an Article III court.

    2. This violated my right to a TRIAL by JURY

    3. This violated my right to a Speedy Trial

    4. This violated my right to assistance of counsel

    5. This violated my right to due process

    6. This violated my right to 11th Amendment Immunity

  8. Over the previous 4 months I had caused to be placed on the record a multitude of notices and demands stating in many ways that I absolutely did not consent to Jurisdiction of that court.

  9. In September of 2004 I was bought back to the Merrimack County Superior Court so that SUPREME COURT JUSTICE DUGGAN could pass sentence on me in violation of my 8th amendment right to protection from unusual punishment.

    1. I was sentenced to 2 consecutive years at the Merrimack County House of Corrections and 21 years suspended at the Concord State Prison with 5 years probation.

    2. I believe this permanently destroyed any possibility of a relationship with my 2 oldest girls.

  10. My ex-wife renewed the 2004 restraining order the first year or 2 but claims that she forgot to do so the following year so she applied once again for a new restraining order.

    1. Justice MCGUIRE presided over the 2008 scheduled hearing.

    2. My ex-wife no longer claimed she was being harassed by documents but that she was now in fear for her safety.

    3. In violation of my due process right to confront the witness against me Justice MCGUIRE found my ex-wife's fears to be valid because she claimed I had once dragged her down the street by her arm in the window.

  11. A hearing was held in January 2008, which resulted in the appointment of GAL SUSAN DECKER. From the very beginning GAL DECKER acted completely contrary to the agreed upon contract which had been authored. On February 5th 2008 GAL DECKER was ordered by the court to find a suitable family therapist for the reunification counseling for my youngest 2 daughters and I to engage in.

    1. At a review hearing in April of 2008 Attorney GAL DECKER explained to the Court that she did not feel it was in my children's best interest to pursue a normal relationship with me. The court expressed its disappointment to the GAL and explained that her opinion was not relevant to the task for which she had been hired.

    2. Further review hearings were held in June of 2008, November 2008, January 2009, March 2009 and May 2009

    3. A motion to remove the GAL was heard and denied on November 30 2009

    4. Two more review hearings were held in April 2010 and October 2010

  12. In 2008 DAN ITSE introduced a HB1543 for the purpose of reestablishing OUR Constitutional Right to petition OUR General Court for the Redress of Our Grievances.

    1. Former House Speaker TERRI NORELLI and Judiciary Committee Chairmen DAVID COTE lead their party in the fight against the resurrection of the Peoples Constitutional Due Process Right to Redress.

    2. Former House Speaker TERRI NORELLI and Judiciary Committee Chairmen DAVID COTE as well as all other members of the House received a firm message from DAN ITSE just minutes prior to the vote on HB1543.

      1. Rep ITSE clearly stated prior to the vote that this was a Constitutional Issue

    3. In violation of their Oaths of Office and in total disregard for the New Hampshire Bill of Rights, both former House Speaker TERRI NORELLI and Judiciary Committee Chairmen DAVID COTE as well as many other members of the House chose to vote contrary to the clear language found in Article 31 of OUR New Hampshire Bill of Rights.

See Also:



In June, the committee voted along party lines to approve Mr. Breton's petition. The Republicans went on to have a bad general election in 2012, in small part because of the antics of the Petitions & Redress Committee. This petition never became the subject of much controversy in 2012, but Mr. Breton was the subject of scathing media ridicule back in the mid-2000s. It is hard for me to imagine why the Republicans thought it was a good idea to take this guy's side. Maybe they took his side simply because they sincerely believed him:

PETITION # 28:  grievance of Ghislain Breton.

MAJORITY

Grievance Founded with Recommendations.

Committee Majority Findings:

Having heard the testimony of and reviewed the documentation submitted by the Petitioner, the Committee finds that he was subjected to 126 days of pretrial incarceration without a "show cause" hearing being held, in apparent contravention of the Superior Court's speed trial policy (see Appendix, Superior Court Rules, Speedy Trial Policy), which states that "Where the defendant is incarcerated, every case pending without disposition after 4 months from date of entry of indictment shall be scheduled forthwith for a show cause hearing as to whether, under the principles of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514… (1972), the case should be dismissed for lack of a speedy trial." The Committee also finds that the Petitioner, who had no prior criminal record, had never previously failed to appear in court when required, and was not charged with a violent crime, was nevertheless effectively denied bail, contrary to Part 1, Article 33 of the New Hampshire Constitution, by being subjected to an excessive cash bail and not permitted surety bail bond. Finally, the Committee found that the Petitioner was unjustifiably denied lawful counsel of his choice and access to law library resources during pretrial detention, thereby depriving him of a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense. The Committee concludes that wrongful actions of the Petitioner, while unacceptable, were driven by the same sense of frustration and injustice in the Family Division reported independently by numerous other petitioners before the Committee.

The Committee recommends the introduction of legislation to establish a joint House-Senate committee to study:

  1. whether there is a systemic problem with denial of speedy trials and/or imposing of excessive bail within our court system;

  2. whether and how to make it easier for pro se litigants to use counsel of their choice in criminal cases; and

  3. whether to require all criminal and civil courts to protect all pro se, sui juris litigants sua sponte.


The Committee further recommends the introduction of legislation making it mandatory for litigants incarcerated pretrial to have access to online legal materials and other lawful research websites, as well as access to copiers, printers and scanners at reasonable cost, in order to provide them with a reasonable opportunity to prepare a proper defense. Finally, the Committee recommends legislation to compensate the Petitioner for any time he was wrongfully imprisoned pretrial and to take the money from the budget of the judiciary. 


Vote 9-3.


Rep. Stella Tremblay for the Majority of the Committee

MINORITY

Grievance Unfounded.

Committee Minority Findings:

Regrettably, Mr. Breton has been unable to see his children for many years due to various legal conflicts.  However, the Minority saw no pattern of official wrongdoing, and they were unable to justify any finding other than "Unfounded." 

Mr. Breton's legal problems mostly stemmed from an attempt to enforce a so-called common-law trademark on his name.  He tried to impose one-sided contracts based on that trademark on various individuals, including two Guardians ad Litem.  The Minority agrees that those contracts and that trademark were both invalid according to court rulings.  

In the Minority's opinion, the courts treated Mr. Breton fairly during his many years of litigation.  Mr. Breton alleges that he was denied counsel of choice, which is not exactly correct: Mr. Breton was merely denied the chance to use persons who were not recognized as expert counsel. 


Rep. Timothy O. Horrigan for the Minority of the Committee





Finally, on November 20, 2012, Gus Breton took it upon himself to file a "Notice of Grievance and Demand for Redress" with House Clerk Karen Wadsworth. I don't think this really counts as a new 2013 petition: it is more in the nature of a followup to his 2012 petition.

He evidently believes that the House Clerk has the power to call the House and Senate into joint session for the purpose of hearing petitions and granting redress. In this case, his requested redress includes payments running into the millions. He did at least manage to find a record in a handwritten ledger from 1812 in the State Archives documenting something somewhat similar to what he has in mind. His Notice of Grievance has no parliamentary significance, although he presumably could find one or more reps to sponsor a 2013 House petition.

Even though he is taking an overly expansive view of the powers of the House Clerk, he is not totally off-base: the majority of the Redress Committee did indeed recommend (in June 2012) that he be compensated (out of the judiciary's budget) "for any time he was wrongfully imprisoned pretrial." It is not unreasonable for him to ask why no meaningful legislative action has been taken on this recommendation, or any of the other recommendations in the majority report on Petition #28.

He sent the following message on to each and every incumbent representative (including the ones who were on their way out, and missing the members-elect who hadn't taken office yet):

Dear Representative,


Through research, it has become clearer to me what the process of Constitutional Redress should involve.-

The first step is to file a Notice of Grievance with the legislature.-

That Notice (petition) must then be read before the "Legislature", in conomtion, which will then vote on whether to immediately restore the petitioner or to set-up a joint subcommittee to investigate the claims made.

If a Joint Committee is formed, it will investigate the matter "completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws" according to Article 14, and then will report it's findings and recommendations to the legislature in conomtion so that the Legislature can vote on the petition.


I'm still searching the archives from time to time and would like any input i can get.

=================

The attached has been placed in the custody of Karen Wadsworth, Clerk of the Legislature.

This PDF contains 2 Apostille's that were not part of the package given to Karen, but are included here for mailing to the Hague.

=================


Thank you for your service to the people of our State,


Ghislain "gus" Breton



"Conomtion" is not a word: he was working off a copy of a handwritten record which (in my opinion) actually says "convention." In spite of that one lexical slip-up, the document shows that Mr. Breton is a stickler for precision. One of his top grievances is that the attorney general's office (allegedly) misled various public bodies (including the Redress Committee) by discussing copyright law, when in fact all Mr. Breton had done was to enforce his (ostensible) common law tradename/trademark contracts after filing a "common law Copyright notice of trademark/tradename." He makes a big point of the fact that the word "copyright" never appears in the contracts he was trying to enforce.

His specific suggested remedies, according to his "Notice of Grievance and Demand for Redress" are:

  1. Provide an official public apology in both the Union Leader and Concord Monitor for the damage caused us at the hands of the New Hampshire Judiciary

  2. Return all my property from the Bow Police Department

  3. Independently compensate my four daughters as they see fit for allowing the New Hampshire Judiciary to destroy their relationship to their Father

  4. Clear my criminal record of all related charges [I have no other record]

  5. Compensate me for every day I was intentionally incarcerated by these rogue agents of the New HampshireJudiciary at $17,000 dollars per day

  6. Compensate me for 1825 days of probationary intrusion into my life at $500 a day

  7. Strip both Robert Lynn and James Duggan of their titles and public pensions for knowingly and intentionally violating my Rights, their Oaths of Office and their good behavior tenure.

  8. Create an elected 25 member Judicial Review Jury for each County for the removal of Judges violating either their good behavior tenure or their Oaths of Office by a simple majority vote.

Gus's cash damages alone (points #5 and #6) would total $9,497,500, if I did my math right, not counting the unspecified damages to be paid to his daughters. Here, he doesn't specifically state that the damages must come out of the judiciary budget, but the Redress Committee majority report recommended taking at least some of his damages out of that budget. The entire judiciary branch budget for fiscal years 2014-2015 will be somewhere in the vicinity of $80 million. The Judiciary Review Jury is an interesting idea, but is probably unconstitutional, and it is unnecessary, since the legislature has the power of impeachment. Such a jury wouldn't have helped Gus Breton anyway, because there is no real evidence that the judges did anything wrong; they haven't even had their rulings in his case overturned.

I cleaned up his original file to make it more readable and to delete some material which impinged on the privacy of his exwife and various family members. First, I took out a little detail about how the exwife met her current partner. (His name was not specified in the original affidavit.) Second, I redacted most of a page-long narrative about an incident which happened in the Fall of 2005: the gist of the story was that Gus was home taking a phone call and his exwife was at a field-hockey game at the exact time when he allegedly violated a restraining order by driving past her house. He was acquitted, but he still has a grievance, since he was imprisoned for 22 days while awaiting trial.

The "Notice of Grievance and Demand for Redress" is one of several documents issued by a small group called the Union States Peoples on New Hampshire. Gus is the leader of this group, insofar as it has any leaders, and petitioners David Johnson and Marie Miller are also members.



See Also:

Other 2012 Petitions:



See Also:



Home

The Forgotten Liars

2012 Session