HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 2-FN-A:
A RESOLUTION making restitution to Jeffrey Frost for inappropriate prosecution.



Additional commentary by NH State Rep. Timothy Horrigan; Februrary 18, 2013

See Also:

In the spring of 2012, the (now-defunct) House Redress Committee ruled (not unanimously) in favor of petitioner Jeffrey Frost. He basically wanted the state to pay him almost $200,000 in legal fees after he was acquitted of violating the banking laws. At the time, no one on the committee had any idea how to go about actually paying him the money— with the exception of myself and Rep. Dan Itse. My first idea (which I did not pursue very aggressively since I voted against this petition) was to add a nongermane amendment to a Senate bill. It was late in the year, but there were still a few bills available to serve as a vehicle. Rep. Itse found that until 50 years or so ago, it was commonplace to pay claims against the state through joint resolutions.

In 2013, Rep. Itse introduced the following House Joint Resolution. The House Judiciary Committee (on which I now sit) held a hearing on this bill on February 14, 2013: Mr. Frost did not show up and he did not even send anyone over to speak on his behalf. This may or may not be because he has a lawsuit pending against the Attorney General and various other state officials. Frost's refusal to have anything to do with the HJR 2 hearings makes me wonder what may have been going on with some of the petitioners before the old Redress of Grievances Committee. Frost remained consistently engaged with the committee throughout the proceedings on his petition, but we had others who tended to vanish for months at a time. I am especially wondering about Elena Katz & Arnold Grodman, who skipped multiple hearings. But I digress...

HJR 2-FN-A — AS INTRODUCED

2013 SESSION

13-0400

04/10

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 2-FN-A

A RESOLUTION making restitution to Jeffrey Frost for inappropriate prosecution.

SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 10

COMMITTEE: Judiciary

ANALYSIS

This house joint resolution requests that full restitution be made to Jeffrey Frost, Chrétien/Tillinghast LLC and/or Frost Family LLC for expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in their defense against the wrongful application of RSA 397-A against them by the New Hampshire banking department and the office of the attorney general; raises and appropriates the sum of $176,448.50 for that purpose; and directs that a warrant be issued to the treasurer of the state of New Hampshire pursuant to NH Const., Pt 2, Art 56 to pay said sum to Jeffrey Frost, Chrétien/ Tillinghast LLC and/or Frost Family LLC.

13-0400

04/10

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Thirteen

A RESOLUTION making restitution to Jeffrey Frost for inappropriate prosecution.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

Whereas, the general court finds and declares that during the 2012 legislative session, the house committee on redress of grievances received and accepted a petition from Jeffrey Frost, 444 Walnut Street, Manchester, New Hampshire 03103, and docketed the same as Petition #18, Petition of Jeffrey Frost; and

Whereas, following several public hearings and review of extensive documentation, including 3 court decisions, the house committee on redress of grievances found as follows:

  1. That the New Hampshire banking department, in re: the Matter of State of New Hampshire Banking Department and Jeffrey Shawn Frost, NHBD #10-013, pursued criminal and civil complaints against the petitioner despite having had ample notice from his attorneys that its assertion of authority over him was wrongful, illegal, and contrary to public policy, and that in any event he had acted pursuant to advice of competent legal counsel and thus lacked the requisite intent; and

  2. That as asserted by the petitioner and confirmed by Merrimack district court judge Clifford Kinghorn in State v. Jeffrey Frost, #456-2010-CR-02374 (August 23, 2010), an investigator for the New Hampshire banking department recklessly or intentionally made a materially false representation in an affidavit supporting search warrants for the petitioner's business records, leading to unlawful searches of the petitioner's home and his attorneys' files; and

  3. That as asserted by the petitioner, confirmed by Merrimack county superior court judge Richard B. McNamara in Jeffrey Frost, Chrétien/Tillinghast LLC & Frost Family LLC v. New Hampshire Banking Department and Peter Hildreth, Commissioner, #217-2010-CV-00288 (December 21, 2010), and affirmed by the New Hampshire supreme court in Jeffrey Frost, et.al. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Banking Department, et. al., #2011-121 (March 16, 2012), the Banking Department had and should have known it had no authority over the petitioner or over Chrétien/Tillinghast LLC or Frost Family LLC (limited liability companies of which the petitioner was a member) under RSA 397-A in that none was engaged in the business of making or brokering mortgage loans secured by real estate, each of the 2 mortgage financing transactions in question clearly having been an isolated private one outside the normal scope of the business of the limited liability company concerned; and

  4. That the banking department knew or should have known that its attempted imposition of $525,000 in civil penalties against the petitioner by applying 2009 amendments to RSA 397-A:4 retrospectively violated NH Const., Pt 1, Art 23; and

  5. That the office of the attorney general:

    1. Knew or should have known that the banking department's affidavit supporting issuance of its search warrant contained a materially false assertion of fact;

    2. Knew or should have known that the banking department's assertion of authority over the Petitioner and his limited liability companies was wrongful and illegal;

    3. Should have exercised its authority to bring about immediate termination of the banking department's proceedings against the petitioner; and

    4. Should have exercised its prosecutorial discretion to decline to defend in the supreme court the banking department's cross-appeal from Judge McNamara's decision; and

Whereas, the house committee on redress of grievances, having so found, recommended that a bill be introduced and passed providing:

  1. That full restitution be made to the petitioner, Chrétien/Tillinghast LLC and/or Frost Family LLC of the expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in their defense against the wrongful application of RSA 397-A against them; and

  2. That such restitution be made in the form of a line item reduction in the appropriations for each of the banking department and department of justice in such proportion as deemed appropriate by the finance committee; and

  3. That a performance audit review be made of the banking department and the department of justice by the legislative budget assistant's office for the purposes of:

    1. Recommending such structural and organizational reforms within and between the 2 departments determined to be necessary to ensure a chain of supervision and authority able to recognize, impede and prevent future such unlawful and oppressive enforcement actions; and

    2. Determining whether cause may exist for disciplinary action, including impeachment as one possible such action, against any one or more individuals within either department; and

Whereas, the petitioner has, agreeably with the request to him from the house committee on redress of grievances, provided the house of representatives with invoices and supporting affidavits from his attorneys to document the petitioner's costs and attorney's fees in his defense against the illegal enforcement actions pursued against him; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

  • That the sum of $176,448.50 is hereby raised and appropriated, and a warrant shall forthwith be issued to the treasurer of the state of New Hampshire pursuant to NH Const., Pt 2, Art 56 to pay said sum to the order of Jeffrey Frost of 444 Walnut Street, Manchester, New Hampshire 03103, and/or Chrétien/Tillinghast LLC and/or Frost Family LLC, as may be directed by Jeffrey Frost.

  • That a copy of this resolution be sent by the house clerk to Jeffrey Frost, Chrétien/Tillinghast LLC, and Frost Family LLC.

LBAO

13-0400.0

01/30/13

HJR 2 FISCAL NOTE

AN ACT making restitution to Jeffrey Frost for inappropriate prosecution.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Due to time constraints, the Office of Legislative Budget Assistant is unable to provide a fiscal note for this bill, as introduced, at this time. When completed, the fiscal note will be forwarded to the House Clerk's Office.



The House Judiciary Committee had little problem agreeing that Rep. Itse's resolution was “Inexpedient to Legislate.” We didn't really have to worry about the merits of Mr. Frost's case. If his legal theory was correct, he would apparently be entitled to even more monetary damages than HJR 2 asked for, and this money wouldn't have to come from the state's General Fund. (The damages could be paid for by the defendant's legal insurance and/or from their personal funds.) If Mr. Frost's theory was incorrect, he wouldn't be entitled to any damages at all. In either case, there was no good reason to even consider interfering with an ongoing court case. The resolution died quietly on a voice vote, on March 6, 2013, with no floor debate at all. Here is the unanimous Judiciary committee report:

HJR 2-FN-A, making restitution to Jeffery Frost for inappropriate prosecution.
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.

Rep. Peter M Sullivan for Judiciary:

The committee takes no stance on the merits of Jeffrey Frost’s claim. Our objection to HJR 2 is based on our learning that Mr. Frost chose to initiate litigation in Superior Court. This is the appropriate forum. The House is not equipped to offer findings of fact or rulings of law in a civil tort case. Further, passing HJR 2 would set a dangerous precedent. A flood of aggrieved litigants seeking financial compensation through the legislative process would overwhelm the House staff and undermine the authority of the courts. Vote 19-0.







See Also: