"Stop the judges!" Feb. 7 Concord

[Dave Ridley]

http://forum.nhliberty.org/index.php?topic=3561.0

[Tom Sawyer]

It would be nice to know more about Ghislain "Gus" Breton?

I googled his name, what I came up with involves him copyrighting his name and wanting 500k for people using his name. Also he was filing liens on peoples property etc.

A negative account
"The asshat formerly known as Ghislain Breton"
A supportive account
Public Reply to Biased Reporting and Propaganda

Hope he doesn't claim copyright infringement against me for using his name. 

I'm concerned because you publicly promoted Ed Brown when you knew and privately admitted he was a nut.

[WithoutAPaddle]

In order for the public at large to be motivated to actively support a grievant, most of us - or at least, those of us with lives - have to conclude that the grievant got screwed, but determining that he did can take an awful lot of work, and I cannot determined from this Petition that Ghislain Breton got screwed, even if the allegations contained within his Petition are true.

I read the two articles that Tom Sawyer has linked.  I will take a shot at summarizing them.  Back in 2003, Mr. Breton went through a messy divorce.  He believes that he received unfair adjudication of it.  Very unfair adjudication of it.  When the Guardian ad Litem who had been appointed by the Court to protect the interests of his children tried to collect her $3,400 bill, he attempted to use/abuse a crackpot theory of copyright liens to interfere with that collection process, and then used that same legal theory as a basis for jamming up his own lawyer's attempts to collect his or her legal bills.

The legal theory under which Mr. Breton claimed standing to file copyright infringement liens against parties whose legitimate bill collection efforts he sought to thwart was, according to a Concord Monitor article, based on the "fact" that the United States went bankrupt in 1933 when it went off the gold standard.

In the linked, RidleyReport post in the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance discussion forum, reference is made to Mr. Breton, "being held over 120 days without due process over a non-aggressive 'crime' "  Was he in jail for Contempt of Court?  Did the Court perhaps order him to withdraw his nuisance filings or not make any more and did he fail to obey such orders, or might that have simply been an incarceration interval before trial when he failed to post bond?

There were a number of allegations of improper judicial and administrative conduct made in an anonymously authored and unsigned Public Reply to Biased Reporting and Propaganda, attributed to "The Many Friends of Gus Breton".  Unfortunately, many of those allegations were expressed in the form of snide characterizations of statements made by the judge and prosecutor that are not readily verifiable and probably not verifiable at all.

Mr. Breton may have been screwed royally by the divorce court.  I wouldn't be surprised if he was, since I believe that the Court system in New Hampshire has no integrity whatsoever.  Or it may be that the Court rendered a fair divorce decree.  That is something that I would never be able to discern even if I committed the remainder of my life to discerning it.

If the improprieties alleged in the petition had anything to do with the Court's handling of Contempt of Court incarceration, then I could understand why many members of this forum would be supportive of an inquisition of such improprieties, but if, as I suspect at this point, Mr. Breton had abused some aspects of the lien filing process to overwhelm the Court system and maliciously hamstring the opposing parties, then his Petition is not well suited to the cause of reforming the Contempt of Court process or addressing any other catagory of systemic injustice, and widely publicizing it would be more likely to undermine efforts to reform it than to advance them.

[Russell Kanning]

I'm concerned because you publicly promoted Ed Brown when you knew and privately admitted he was a nut.

I would guess that his lawyer will be sending you a bill.
and when I say "his" I am referring to he who must not be named.

[Russell Kanning]

In order for the public at large to be motivated to publicly support a grievant, most of us - or at least, those of us with lives - have to conclude that the grievant got screwed, and ascertaining that takes an awful lot of work.  It cannot be discerned from the Petition.

You have a life? Who doesn't?
It seems to me that a very busy public at large can be swayed to support one person over another with a few good tv reports. If you give people a whole movie on the subject there will be massive social change for good or bad.

just from your guys posts I am not going to get interested in this case .... legal gymnastics are not too interesting to me

[WithoutAPaddle]

PETITION 28 – AS INTRODUCED

12-2763

04/09

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 right to access the law library and his right to counsel.


There are remedies available for all seven of the enumerated grievances.  Was there an accompanying brief filed explaining that those remedies were exhausted or are inherently inadequate, thus warranting legislative remedy?


In so far as the proposed remedies are concerned:

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.

I thought that all such testimony in protective order hearings already was subject to the penalty of perjury.  I sat in on one emergency ex parte protective order hearing and it was held with the formality I would have expected, with the witnesses being sworn in.


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

I didn't see a charge of an impeachable offense that meets the level of specificity needed to warrant consideration of such an investigation.


3. Introduce legislation to require the courts to actively protect a litigant's pro se rights

I'm vaguely aware that there is New Hampshire case law mandating that a judge protect the pro se plaintiff or defendant, as I have seen it cited in an appeal, but regrettably I didn't commit the case or citation to memory, and in any event, I don't see any allegation in this pleading that a court had failed to do so.


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.

Now this is one we have discussed here previously, HERE in the Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS .  But using the "Grievance of Ghislain Breton" as a vehicle for advancing the cause of better serving the legal needs of incarcerated, pro se defendants or prisoners (litigants are not incarcerated simply because they are litigants) would tend to hinder rather than help efforts to make more legal resources available to them if it cannot be shown that he was deprived of any rights because of the inadequacy of legal resources availability, and if it instead appeared that granting him more access would simply have enabled him to make even more malicious or frivilous filings.


Does Representative Hikel stand behind this Petition and plan to advocate it, or is he simply submitting it as an accommodation to a citizen?

[Tom Sawyer]

Thanks for taking the time to attempt to filter through the information.

I honestly don't know how to make heads or tails out of this person's situation... however I am inclined to be wary with these types of "legal" maneuvering. Some real crackpot beliefs out there.

[John]

Oh boy.

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

I already knew that lawyers (and "their bosses - their clients" wink wink) sometimes pray to judges - - - which is disgusting, and shouldn't be done. So I suppose it shouldn't really surprise me (but it does) that some people actually pray to "their" servants in the house of "representatives."

This, it seems, should really help illustrate how big a problem truly exists.

YUCK!

[MaineShark]

Oh boy.

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

I already knew that lawyers (and "their bosses - their clients" wink wink) sometimes pray to judges - - - which is disgusting, and shouldn't be done. So I suppose it shouldn't really surprise me (but it does) that some people actually pray to "their" servants in the house of "representatives."

This, it seems, should really help illustrate how big a problem truly exists.

YUCK!

Well, to be technically correct, the word refers to making a strong request.

It's a more recent development that it has generally come to refer only to requests made to deities.  Since much legal language is rooted centuries in the past, a lot of terms are used, which would not be used in modern English.  I just posted something about that, regarding the term "mortgage," which some folks find offensive because it means "death contract," but the actual meaning is that the contract will end, rather than binding one for life, so it's a good thing that the contract dies.

However, I expect that most users don't realize that "pray" has multiple meanings, are are using it in the "begging from a deity" sense when they address the court.  Sad, but true...

[WithoutAPaddle]

Since much legal language is rooted centuries in the past, a lot of terms are used, which would not be used in modern English.

If you read old Supreme Court decisions regarding incompetent persons for whom Guardians were appointed, they were often referred to as "lunatics".  Hell, that's what I still call 'em.

The body of a Court petition consists of two parts: a Pleading, in which allegations of fact and law are made, and a Demand, in which the desired relief is described. Since, in court, the litigant is taking the position that he is entitled to the relief he seeks as a matter of law, the use of the term Demand seems reasonable, and so the substitution of the term, "Pray" may be considered genteel or precatory, but in a legislative petition, I don't think it is reasonable for a Petitioner to demand the remedy he seeks, so some form of the term prayer is in order since granting the proscribed relief is at the disctretion of the legislators.

[WithoutAPaddle]

This sentence is from the RidleyReport post that is linked to the opening post in this thread:

"Breton is aiming to breathe new vigor and bite into the petition for redress process."

It occurrred to me last night that I might like to use that vehicle to try to introduce a proposal for a constructive change to the Court system, but today, someone is going to make a public nuisance of himself while abusing it, just as he had previously abused the lien filing protection, and whatever impressions are made today will tend to undermine the productive future use of petitions for redress by others.

[Dave Ridley]

All people have certain human rights, even if other people think they are "a nut."   

[WithoutAPaddle]

All people have certain human rights, even if other people think they are "a nut."

http://www.hark.com/clips/syjqlnbwmv-im-all-broken-up

[Russell Kanning]

and some of us even like the nuts like Dada and his head

speaking in legalese with all the your honors and praying .... yuck