2013 Petitions to the New Hampshire House



Additional commentary by Rep. Timothy Horrigan
last revised: April 23, 2013

See Also:

It probably seems a little silly to be listing the 2013 House Petitions, since there will be no House Petitions and Redress Committee in 2013.

The previous Speaker Bill O'Brien was committed to keeping the committee in place, even after House Counsel Ed Mosca became one of the many villains of the highly memorable "Youssef Petition." O'Brien did some work on redoing the committee's rules for the upcoming session. (He didn't include me or any other Democrats in that work, apparently since he considered us so insignificant that there was no need to even tell us what he was up to. I only found out because he told a reporter, and she passed the news on to me.)

O'Brien lost the Speakership: he narrowly held on to his seat, but over 100 of his fellow Republicans were not so lucky. He ended up not even being the Minority Leader. The new Speaker Terie Norelli had expressed her opposition in the past to the creation="../ and continuance="../ of the committee, although in 2009 she helped create a process whereby petitions could be formally filed.

The 2013 session began on the first Wednesday in December, i.e., December 5, 2012. The main order of business for the House on December 5th was to elect a new Speaker, along with the House Clerk and the House Sergeant-at-Arms. The Senate simultaneously elected its President as well as its own Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms. Finally, the House and Senate met in joint convention (not to be confused with Gus Breton's "joint conomtion") to elect the Secretary of State and the State Treasurer.

The House's standing committees are specified in House Rule 30, which (during the 2011-2012 biennium) had 23 subparagraphs lettered a through w. In 2012, there were 22 standing committees plus the Rules Committee. An amendment to Rule 30 is needed to create or abolish one or more committees. It is generally considered bad form to bring a rules change to the floor of the full House without having a Rules Committee meeting first.

House Calendar #2, issued on Thursday, December 13, 2012 contained the following notice of a December 20, 2012 Rules Committee hearing:

RULES COMMITTEE, Room 301, LOB

2:00 p.m. Regular meeting.

That's all it said: "Regular meeting."

About 100 people showed up to sit in on the meeting. No testimony was taken from either the public or from state representatives. The official explanation was that no testimony could be taken because this was merely a "regular meeting" rather than a hearing="../ even though testimony can be (and typically is) taken at Rules Committee meetings.

The newly elected Speaker of the House, Terie Norelli, did not show up for this meeting even though she definitely was at the State House that day, and even though she is the Chair of the Rules Committee. It is unusual for a Speaker to totally skip a Rules Committee meeting, especially one which deals with matters of substance. Her absence stymied petitioner Joe Haas's attempt to serve her with papers, related to the outcome of his 2012 Petition #22.

The most contentious issue before the Rules Committee was banning guns: they will now once again be banned in the House chamber and areas adjacent thereto. But, the abolition of the Redress of Grievances committee ran a close second. There were several other smaller issues.

Before enduring a series of gun rants all afternoon on January 2, 2013, the House spent an hour or two debating whether or not to abolish the Petitions & Redress Committee. I gave a speech in favor of abolishing the committee, although I said the committee might have been worth keeping if it had been a policy committee which could actually consider real legislation. In addition to abolishing the committee itself, the majority leadership proposed (and got) some technical changes which collectively eliminated the requirement to send all petitions to policy committees. (That requirement had been disregarded for many years anyway.) A motion to keep the Redress Committee in place (along with the Constitutional Review & Statutory Recodification Committee) lost by 226-147.

Even though I got a good committee assignment (the Judiciary Committee), and even though some of my recent emails from petitioners have been pretty damned annoying, I would would have liked very much to keep the Petitions & Redress Committee around in some form for two more years. However, I am also not too heartbroken now that it has gone away.

See Also:

Several reps submitted Legislative Services Requests ("LSR's") for redress of grievances petitions during the September 2012 and November 2012 filing windows. Six or seven petition titles appeared in the January 25, 2013 House Calendar, which appeared in advance of the January 30, 2013 session day.

The first two petitions were sponsored by Rep. Dan Itse. Rep. Itse also sponsored a resolution which would pay 2011-2012 petitioner Jeffrey Frost almost $180,000 in legal fees.

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

TO: The Honorable House of Representatives
FROM: Petitioner Representative Daniel Itse, Rockingham 11
SUBJECT: Grievance of Ralph Holder



Your Petitioner, Representative Itse, on behalf of Mr. Ralph Holder, hereinafter presents the following summary of his grievance against the State of New Hampshire, the circuit court family division, and the appointed guardian ad litem, and invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable House of Representatives pursuant to Articles 31 and 32 of the New Hampshire Constitution to bring about redress:

Grievance based on violations of Ralph Holder's rights involving: a child's school placement based upon race; the denial of access to guardian ad litem records; the denial of an opportunity to an attorney when the judge denied Mr. Holder's attorney the day of the hearing; the guardian ad litem's failure to inform the petitioner that a recommended counselor was not certified and that the guardian ad litem had a conflict of interest in recommending the counselor; and the denial of an opportunity to confront witnesses, in violation of part 1 article 15 of the New Hampshire constitution.

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

Amend the laws of the State such that:

  1. No person can be required to appear before the court without an attorney, and if an attorney is required the hearing must be rescheduled.

  2. All court-appointed counselors must disclose conflicts of interest and the failure to do so is a crime under RSA 641.

  3. Restraining orders shall not be used to violate constitutionally recognized rights.

Respectfully submitted by Petitioner Representative Itse on behalf of Ralph Holder.

Ralph Holder of Newton, NH has been involved in numerous federal and state lawsuits over the past decade or so. Most, if not all, of those lawsuits stem from a long-running post-divorce child-custody battle with his ex-wife. He usually represents himself pro se, but he has had attorneys on occasion. I have seen a few dozen of the thousands of pages of documents from his cases: all I can say is that this is an extraordinarily complicated situation which started out as a rather average divorce.


PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

TO: The Honorable House of Representatives
FROM: Petitioner Representative Daniel C. Itse, Rockingham 10
DATE: January 2, 2013
SUBJECT: Grievance of Timothy Sanborn

Your Petitioner, Representative Itse on behalf of Timothy Sanborn and for the citizens of New Hampshire who may likewise be affected, hereinafter presents the following summary of his grievances involving Marital Master Fishman, and Marital Master Cross 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. Failure of the administrative judge of the judicial branch family division during the period 2007-2011 to adequately manage and train marital masters.

  2. Marital Master Fishman who incorporated recommendations by opposing counsel in an order that effectively denied health insurance to Timothy Sanborn by reversing a previous decision.

  3. Marital Master Cross who issued a divorce decree without the requisite signature on the stipulation or the necessary financial affidavits. Marital Master Cross issued an order which required that the respondent in a divorce pay the legal fees of the petitioner in that divorce and which prohibited any reconsideration of that order or appeal of that order to an other Court including the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

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

  1. Introduce legislation to require the Family Court Division to follow the laws of the State, and that any waiver of rules requires a written justification.

  2. Introduce legislation to restore the $94,000 taken from the retirement account of Timothy Sanborn by the Court Appointed third party and require that such funds be returned to him.

Respectfully Submitted by Petitioner Representative Daniel C. Itse on Behalf of Timothy Sanborn and the citizens of New Hampshire.

Timothy Sanborn of Rye, NH is a father who is a party to a long-running divorce/child custody case. He is a familiar face at the State House, and he tried to file a petition in 2012. His request was denied because he and his sponsor missed the filing deadline.

Rep. Tim Comerford is sponsoring this year's petition by serial petitioner Dot Knightly:

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

TO: The Honorable House of Representatives
FROM: Petitioner Representative Timothy Comerford, Rock. 33
SUBJECT: Grievance of Dorothy Knightly, Nashua, New Hampshire

Your Petitioner, Representative Comerford on behalf of Dorothy Knightly, hereinafter presents the particulars of her grievance against the State of New Hampshire, Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Children, Youth, and Families and invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable House of Representatives pursuant to said Articles 31 and 32 to bring about their redress: Grievance based on the following:

  1. During the home study by [Social Worker's Name Deleted] and [Social Worker's Name Deleted], they informed Dorothy Knightly that they were recommending that [Grandson's Name Deleted] be placed with Dorothy Knightly.

  2. Completion of the home study was denied. Without further investigation the home study was concluded with negative recommendation by Tracy Gubbins.

  3. Judge Bamberger denied contact with Dorothy Knightly without hearing.

  4. [Grandson's Name Deleted] and [Granddaughter's Name Deleted] were denied guardianship and eventual adoption by a blood relative and continued contact with extended family.

Wherefore, your Petitioner prays that the House of Representatives:

  1. Determine if there was maladministration on the part of Judge Bamberger and consider Judge Bamberger's removal by Bill of Address;

  2. Amend the laws of the State to prevent such injury to grandparents seeking custody.

Respectfully submitted by petitioner Representative Comerford on behalf of Dorothy Knightly.

This will basically be Dot's fourth House Petition. I say "basically" because two of them were filed in the name of Dot's daughter Candy Knightly, who actually had very little to do with the petition process. Dot's daughter (Candy's sister) Holly Knightly also put in a request to have a petition drafted, but Holly's petition evidently got lost in the shuffle after the Republicans lost the election.

Rep. Robert Luther, the man who introduced the inimitable Joshua Youssef to the Granite State political scene, is sponsoring two petitions in 2013:

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE


TO: The Honorable House of Representatives
FROM: Petitioner Representative Robert Luther, Belknap 3
DATE: December 31, 2012
SUBJECT: Grievance of Ann Marie Moynihan

Your Petitioner, Representative Luther, on behalf of Ann Marie Moynihan, hereinafter presents the following summary of her grievances involving the 10th Circuit Court Family Division in Brentwood 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 the 10th Circuit Court Family Division for failing to act in the best interest of the children by issuing an order that the children were to remain in Hampstead, thereby denying the mother the right to relocate in order to return to work although the relocation would not change the amount of time the children spent with their father; causing the mother to become a displaced homemaker under RSA 275-D; holding the mother in contempt for spending the summer in Gilford, despite an email from her explaining the temporary nature of the relocation; dismissing a stalking order against the father, after the father admitted stalking, on the grounds that he was creating evidence for a contempt hearing; ordering shared parenting despite opposition by the Guardian ad Litem; issuing an order suspending the mother's parenting time with her son based on evidence that did not meet the requisite burden of proof; causing the mother and her son to be wrongfully and illegally estranged for 2 years; requiring the mother to pay child support, which exhausted her cash, assets, credit, and retirement funds.

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

  1. Determine whether there was maladministration on the part of the 10th Circuit Court Family Division in Brentwood.

  2. Determine whether the court's orders are in violation of RSA 275-D, RSA 458-C, and 461-A.

  3. Determine whether disciplinary action should be taken against the judge.

Respectfully Submitted by Petitioner Representative Luther on Behalf of Ann Marie Moynihan. December 31, 2012

This Ann Marie Moynihan is the same person as the complainant in a court case entitled "Ann Marie Moynihan vs. John Moynihan."

In 2009, the New Hampshire Supreme Court dealt with one aspect of the Moynihans' long-running divorce/child custody case: the high court upheld the Plaistow District Court's decision to dismiss a stalking complaint against her ex-husband. John walked by Ann Marie's house almost every day for two months. The district court (somewhat surprisingly) ruled his behavior wasn't stalking because he (supposedly) had a legitimate reason for doing so, and the Supreme Court upheld that ruling. Mr. Moynihan's legitimate reason (ostensibly) was that he needed to determine where she was living for the purposes of defending himself in ongoing family court proceedings.  I have looked at the Supreme Court filings and (at first glance) the rulings made some sense, though I personally would liked to see more sense than what I saw. Mr. Moynihan's behavior seemed more than a little questionable to me.


PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

TO: The Honorable House of Representatives
FROM: Petitioner Representative R. Luther. Belk. 3
SUBJECT: Grievance of Carlo Basner Fioli

Your Petitioner. Representative Luther, on behalf of Carlo Basner Fioli. hereinafter presents the following summary of his grievance against the State of New Hampshire, the Rockingham circuit court family division, the appointed marital master, and the appointed guardian ad litem, and invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable House of Representatives pursuant to Articles 31 and 32 of the New Hampshire Constitution to bring about redress:

Grrievance involving repeated violations of Carlo Basner Fioli's due process rights, violations of the standards of evidence, violations of the New Hampshire statutes and precedents relative to parenting rights and responsibilities, abuses of discretion and power, and an unsustainable exercise of discretion regarding evidence.

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

  1. Increase accountability of guardians ad litem appointed in divorce and parenting cases so as to prevent abuses of discretion.

  2. Require appropriate evaluation and training of guardians ad litem appointed in divorce and parenting cases.

  3. Establish a rebuttable presumption in favor of shared parenting arrangements.

  4. Establish an effective system for identifying and preventing conflicts of interest among marital masters, guardians ad litem, and attorneys.

  5. Ensure that otherwise valid parenting arrangements and contractual obligations established by same-sex couples are enforced and honored by the court in subsequent parental rights proceedings.

Respectfully submitted by Petitioner Representative Luther on behalf of Carlo Basner Fioli.

Carlo Fioli was one of the regulars in the gallery during the 2012 redress hearings. He was a pleasant, soft-spoken man whose primary grievance was that he had been denied custody of his triplet daughters. He is the complainant in a state Supreme Court case with a memorable title: "Carlo Basner v. Charles Basner." This case is part of the aftermath of one of the first gay divorces in New Hampshire history. Carlo (who changed his last name) and Charles Basner were together from 1998 through 2009, and in 2000 they had triplets with the help of a surrogate mother. In 2007 Carlos & Charles entered into a Civil Union, but in 2009 Carlo filed to dissolve it. They were still officially civilly united on January 1, 2011 when all civil unions between New Hampshire residents were converted to marriages. In March 2011, their divorce was granted.


Stella Tremblay, the former clerk of the Redress Committee, is bringing back an especially memorable 2012 petition.

Wade Henry's 2012 Petition #31 (about his workman's compensation claim) went down to a resounding 9-1 defeat, but the lone dissenter, Rep. Tremblay, decided to give it another go. I know just how she feels: I re-introduced some bills myself in 2013 which failed badly in 2012. Mr. Henry did much better this time: a motion to have his petition sent to the Labor Committee failed by less than a 9-1 margin. The roll call was 243-93 against Mr. Henry. I actually voted in his favor.

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

TO: The Honorable House of Representatives
FROM: Petitioner Representative Stella Tremblay, Rock. -1
DATE: January 3. 2013
SUBJECT: Grievance of Wade Henry

Your Petitioner Representative Tremblay on behalf of Wade Henry, hereinafter presents the following summary of his grievances involving decisions of David J. Rogers, hearings officer, and other employees of the Department of Labor and David Siff, chairman, and other members of the Compensation Appeals Hoard and invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable 1 louse of Representatives pursuant to Articles 31 and 32 to bring about redress:

Grievances involving the employees of the Department of Labor, including David J. Rogers, hearings officer, and members of the Compensation Appeals Board, including David Siff. chairman, for the following:

  1. The Department of Labor misinterpreted the facts of the case, leading to an erroneous decision, as follows:

    1. The Department cited 2 past unrelated injuries as rationale for denying Mr. Henry's claim. Mr. Henry had injured his shoulder twice before the incident leading to the claim, but the injuries were not debilitating.

    2. The Department incorrectly omitted testimony and evidence from doctors that Mr. Henry reported a "tearing in his neck" on a date in late August 2006. which is a different injury than the injury used to deny his claim and an injury that was debilitating.

    3. The Department incorrectly cited the description of the workplace incident that occurred, as testified to by Mr. Henry and his witness. [Name Deleted] of Salem. New Hampshire.

  2. The Department and the Compensation Appeals Hoard inappropriately used past criminal history and Mr. Henry's understandable desire for pain medication as evidence for their decisions.

  3. The Compensation Appeals Board denied Mr. Henry due process when the Board:

    1. Denied a private investigator's report as hearsay evidence; and

    2. Would not allow a rehearing after Mr. Henry's attorney drafted a clear and consistent documentation of the facts on November 19. 2008. which clearly disputed the facts used to deny Mr. Henry's claim.

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

  1. Introduce a house joint resolution that requests, notwithstanding any laws or rules to the contrary, another hearing that allows the evidence to be reconsidered and clarified, so that Mr. Henry can be awarded appropriate workers' compensation benefits and receive training for continued employment.

  2. Consider and introduce changes to laws and administrative rules to prevent denial of due process or the activities which led to these faulty decisions.

Respectfully submitted by Petitioner Representative Tremblay on Behalf of Wade Henry.






One petition turned up for the first time in the January 25, 2013 calendar. It had no legislative sponsor: it was filed by a gentleman from Keene named Darryl W. Perry, who was outraged by something one of his local reps said on BlueHampshire.com. I think he significantly misinterpreted the rep's remarks. His petition had no legislative sponsor. Mr. Perry is a member of the so-called "Free Keene" group, who are local gadflies in the college town of Keene. (Well, actually Keene is technically a City.) The listing in the calendar simply said:

Petition from Darryl W. Perry of Keene and 119 others seeking censure and impeachment of a member of the General Court.

Rep. George Lambert tried on January 30, 2013 to have the Perry petition referred to a committee (he didn't say which one) and his motion was killed by a 276-77 roll call vote.

Rep. Mark Warden (who is not from Keene or anyplace near Keene) also sponsored a petition which named four other Free Keeners as complainants. This one was filed through the usual channels during the filing period. The full House voted not to send this one to the Judiciary Committee, by a vote of 226-108:

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

To: The Honorable House of Representatives
Petitioner: Representative Mark Warden, Hillsborough 39
Date: January 9, 2013 Grievance of Ian Freeman, Jason Talley, Kate Ager, and Adam Mueller, Keene, New Hampshire

Grievance of Ian Freeman, Jason Talley, Kate Ager, and Adam Mueller, Keene, New Hampshire

Your Petitioner Representative Warden on behalf of Ian Freeman, Jason Talley, Kate Ager, and Adam Mueller of Keene, hereinafter presents the following summary of their grievance involving denial of public access to court proceedings and intimidation and improper arrests by county officials in Cheshire county and invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable House of Representatives pursuant to Articles 31 and 32 to bring about redress:

Grievance involving the Cheshire county sheriff and his agents. Agents of the Cheshire county sheriff's office engaged in the following activities at the Cheshire county superior court with respect to the aggrieved: arrest for carrying a video camera within the courthouse: threats of arrest for exercising protected speech rights: and issuing '"no trespass" orders applicable to property open to the public and arresting one of the aggrieved for violating such an order.

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

  1. Pass a house resolution requesting the Cheshire county sheriffs office to rescind its "no trespass" order against the aggrieved.

  2. Introduce legislation affirming the public's right to record an interaction with a public employee performing his or her official duties in public place, including courtrooms.

  3. Introduce legislation to prohibit a judge from holding a person in contempt of court for refusing to stand or for wearing particular apparel.

Respectfullly submitted by Petitioner Representative Warden on Behalf of Ian Freeman, Jason Talley, Kate Ager, and Adam Mueller.


The Free Keene group is involved in a long-running dispute with the Keene police and the Cheshire County courts. The origins of that dispute are murky, although apparently it has something to do with the issue of videotaping law enforcement officers. They are also involved with "CopBlock.org," who have been involved in another murky dispute with the Manchester Police Department. Speaking of video, this foursome has posted lots and lots of YouTube videos documenting their activities. I pity any committee which has to deal with these people since they politely but firmly refuse to recognize the authority of any non-Free State government officials.

Ian Freeman is a semi-famous talk-show host: his "Free Talk Live" program is on 110 stations nationwide. He also ran for the legislature as a third-party candidate. His platform included having New Hampshire secede from the United States to become a libertarian utopia known as "The Shire" He lost by a landslide.




Kate Ager & Adam Mueller/Ademo Freeman

Adam Mueller is also known as Ademo Freeman. After a rather chaotic trial Ademo was recently convicted on felony charges of wiretapping (stemming from an incident where he recorded three phone calls he made to public officials) and he has been incarcerated. For more info (complete, but not necessarily objective) see:






Finally, on November 20, 2012, petitioner Gus Breton took it upon himself to file a "Notice of Grievance and Demand for Redress" with House Clerk Karen Wadsworth. I am not sure whether this really counts as a new 2013 petition. I think this is more in the nature of a followup to his 2012 Petition #28, which the Republicans on the Redress Committee endorsed. He is trying to get the legislators to keep the promises he thought they made him this summer.

Ian Freeman is not the only petitioner who has been dabbling with secession. Gus Breton has been leading a small group called the "New Hampshire Assembly" which (apparently) is in favor of dissolving the current United States of America, abolishing the United States Constitution (with the exception of the socalled "Missing Amendment XIII") and reinstating the Articles of Confederation. Petitioners David Johnson and Marie Miller are also part of this group, which has recently released some rather interesting documents, most notably the July 9, 2012 "New Hampshire Declaration of Abjuration and Reformation."

Breton's group also seems to be behind a strange petition which was filed on April 9, 2013. Certainly, the prose style is reminiscent of Gus's and he did put up a web page entitled "Breach of Oath of Office" in support of the petition.

This petition was part of the hoopla surrounding a "Honor Your Oath" rally on Saturday, April 13, 2013, and apparently criminal complaints have been filed against the Concord 189 in at least two counties.

For more info, see:



Shortly before the 2013 session, the Legislative Ethics Committee issued an interpretive ruling. I can't go into any detail about what prompted this ruling, since the proceedings were confidential="../but I think it is OK to acknowledge that I was one of the people who inspired it.

I posted some material on this web site which arguably didn't need to be reposted, even if it had already been released into the public domain by the petitioners and/or the sponsors. I am reasonably comfortable with the ruling, although there are some cases where it is useful to let the public know what evidence is being presented to support a petition, even when that evidence is questionable.

INTERPRETIVE RULING 2012-#3 (November 14, 2012)

Supplementing Interpretive Ruling 2011-#1 Relating to Obligations of Legislators in Connection with Proposed Petitions for the Redress of Grievances

Further questions have arisen regarding the obligations of legislators in connection with requests from members of the public to present petitions for redress of grievances on their behalf. Specifically, the questions are

  1. what obligations legislators may have when asked to include in a Grievance Petition information that involves private health or financial information of third parties, i.e., persons who are not the object of the redress sought by the request; and

  2. what obligations legislators may have in connection with dissemination of such information though unofficial channels.

The Committee has reviewed applicable provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution, statutes, rules, and Ethics Guidelines governing the conduct of legislators in the performance of their duties as such, and interprets them as follows.

  1. Obligation to exercise caution and due diligence in considering what information should properly be included in a Grievance Petition. Legislators should exercise caution and due diligence about the propriety of including, and the accuracy of, private health or financial information of third parties, i.e., persons who are not the object of the redress sought by the request. Where a request proposes to include such information in a Grievance Petition, it is not sufficient for a legislator simply to include the information as submitted, without exercising independent judgment about whether the information is protected by law from disclosure, whether the information appears to be accurate, and whether including it is necessary to support granting the relief sought in the requested Petition.

  2. Obligation to exercise caution and due diligence in considering whether to further disseminate, through unofficial channels, private health or financial information of third parties contained in Grievance Petitions. Legislators should not further discuss or disseminate such information through unofficial channels without first exercising independent judgment about whether the information is protected by law from disclosure, whether the information appears to be accurate, and whether it is necessary to support granting the relief sought in the Petition.

Martin L. Gross, Chairman For the Committee




PDFs of the 2013 Petitions



See Also:


Home

The Forgotten Liars

2013 Session