Its bad enough that (former) Brentwood Family Court Marital Master Harriett Fishman, Court
Appointed Guardian ad Litem Patricia Frim Esq, and Judge Gerald Taube committed the federal civil rights violation, this blog will highlight the corruption and cover-up of the racial and gender biased decision of the NH Judicial Branch by state and local officials directly responsible for providing my son and I proper remedy and relief.
ADMITTING YOUR AN ASSHOLE AND A RACIST IS THE FIRST STEP GOVERNOR
Modern Faces of Racism by the Elite of New Hampshire
Brock Broderick Nadeau Dalianis Duggan
“In A.J’s best interest I recommend that he attend the Burnham School in Haverhill (MA)….Furthermore, the issue of diversity is real. A. J. would likely find it lonely being the only Black child in a school in NH. He has a rich Black Heritage of which to be proud. He can share with and learn from other children of his color and it can enhance his growing up years in numerous ways. In Haverhill (MA), he has that opportunity far more that it exists in NH.” –Patricia Frim, Esq., Court Appointed Guardian ad Litem, 07/14/03
The GAL shall be the representative for and of the best interest of the child or represented person. Rule 2.4.2. (a) Scope of Representation, New Hampshire Guidelines for Guardians ad litem.
The GAL shall not bring or defend a proceeding or assert or controvert an issue therein unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Rule 2.6.1. Meritorious Claims and Contention, New Hampshire Guidelines for Guardians ad litem.
“Ultimately, the court finds that the most important factors are diversity and crime. Given the information presented on the issue of diversity...the Court concludes that the Burnham school in Haverhill (MA) would be the more appropriate placement for A.J.”- Marital Master Harriet J. Fishman- Case No. 02-M-0032 (Approved Judge Gerald Taube). 08/05/03
“No appeal, however, is declined except by unanimous vote of the court with at least three justices participating. No justice who considered this matter voted to accept this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was declined. If any justice who considered this matter believed the appeal should have been accepted, this case would have been scheduled for briefing. Declined. Brock, C.J., and Broderick, Nadeau, Dalianis and Duggan, JJ., concurred. Case No. 03-0640, (Declining to hear appeal of Case 02-M-0032), 11/21/03) The Respondent, citing pertinent facts, evidence and circumstances, offered proof that the weight of the evidence demonstrated that the GAL’s recommendation and Marital Master’s ruling on the school enrollment was not in the “best interest of the child.” NH Justices denied the respondent’s appeal without opinion.
“A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officers and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.” Canon of Ethics, Canon 3 (5)
“Calls to the Portsmouth Family Division were referred to the Family Division offices in Concord. Judge Edwin W. Kelly, administrative judge for the Family Division, said he was unaware of the protest and had no personal knowledge of Holder’s case. Kelly said that race is never used as a determining factor in custody decisions. “Absolutely not. This is the United States of America,” he said. Larry Clow, “The Wire, Newton Man protests at Portsmouth Court, 9 Nov. 2005. (Receipt of a sworn written complaint, with supporting documents, was acknowledged by Family Court Administrator Gina Belmont Apicelli of Judge Kelly’s Office in March 2004 alleging racial bias by Fishman, Frim and Taube). Family Court Division delayed investigation of the complaint for 3 years, then dismissed the complaint claiming no evidence of GAL misconduct.
“Because Holder’s claims are so facially deficient, a detailed recitation of the facts is unnecessary. For purposes of this discussion, it is sufficient simply to note that Holder’s claims arise from facts surrounding certain divorce and custodial proceedings to which Holder was a party.”- Holder v. State, 06-cv-252-PB (NH U.S. District Court Judge Barbadoro engaged in an unethical lack of candor in covering-up of State’s act of racial bias by hiding the true nature of Holder’s civil suit from the public scrutiny, which was the violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that Rev. Dr. Arthur Hilson engaged in a unlawful conspiracy with Frim to interfere with his constitutional rights.).
“In custody cases, the primary consideration is the welfare and best interests of the child involved, while other considerations are merely secondary. Custody awards are not made or changed to gratify the desires of either parent, or to reward or punish either of them. . . I further believe that the trial judge erred when he improperly based his child-custody determination on racial bias contrary to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 104 S.Ct. 1879, 80 L.Ed.2d 421 (1984). Because Palmore clearly prohibits the use of racial bias as a basis for a custody decision, this is not merely a matter of a trial court acting in a politically correct manner in hearing evidence and reaching a judicial determination. Rather, this is a matter of courts enforcing rights granted by the federal constitution and of preventing court proceedings from being converted into forums where bigotry is promoted and tolerated under the guise of trial advocacy.” Tipton v. Aaron, Ark Ct of Appls, (2004) .
“We only add the following. To the extent plaintiff was unhappy with any of the state court rulings, his remedy was to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.” (citing Davison v. P.R-P.R Firefighters Corp., 471 F.3d 220, 223 (1st Cir, 2006)” Holder v. State, 1st Cir No. 06-2625 (2007) NH U.S. Attorney Colantouno refused the Holder’s request to intervene despite having the legal authority to do so and being provided with sworn certification that no attorney that was contacted would represent his claims the State court engaged in violation of Section 407 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Palmore v. Sidoti and Brown v. Board of Ed).
,
FACTS ABOUT THE BURNHAM SCHOOL
Racial Imbalance-the condition of a public school in which more than 50% of the pupils attending are non-white. - Mass. Gen. Law. Chap. 71 § 37D.
Minority Student Enrollment-Burnham School-62% Minority enrollment–Mass Dept of Ed, SIMS, 2003 (Hispanic 55.9%, African American 4.2%, and Asian 2.1%)
“Limited English Proficient (LEP)” -students whose primary or home language is other than English who need special language assistance in order to effectively participate in school instructional programs. (Limited English Proficient Student- 38.5 %, Students whose First Language not English 51.0%) -Burnham School Profile, MA Dept of Ed, 2003.
English Language Arts-Rating-“Low”-Burnham Elementary Cycle III Accountability Report 2003.
During 2000-2003, Haverhill Public Schools among the “below average” performing school systems in the Commonwealth. On the 2003 MCAS test, 76.9% of the African American students and 83.9% of the Hispanic American students in Haverhill scored in the “Needs Improvement” and “Warning/Failing” categories.-Executive Summary-Mass Dept of Ed-Haverhill Exam Report, 2004
“Title I facilitator” GAL Report, 2003 Grant funds are targeted to high-poverty schools and districts (poverty rate of at least 40 percent) and used to provide educational services to students who are educationally disadvantaged, low academic achievement or are at risk of failing to meet state standards. U.S. Dept of Ed- (Low Income 58.7%-Burnham School)
De Facto residential segregation, “High Hispanic population,”-Patricia Frim, Esq., GAL Report, 2003
Haverhill Public Schools, “Persistent Failure to meet Adequate Yearly Progress” MA Dept of Ed Report, 2004.
“The 29 lowest-scoring elementary school districts include Boston, Brockton, Cambridge, Chelsea, Chicopee, Fall River, Fitchburg, Greenfield, Haverhill, Holyoke, Lawrence, Lowell….” “Romney Details Mandatory Parental Prep Plan” Press Release: The Commonwealth of Massac husetts Executive Dept., January 21, 2004.
“Kids in our urban schools, most of them minorities, are not succeeding at anywhere near the rate of their counterparts in the suburbs,” Romney said. “And let me be clear: The failure of our urban schools to prepare our children today for the challenges of tomorrow is the civil rights issue of our generation.” Romney Delivers 2005 State of the Commonwealth Address: Focusing on education, calls for more accountability, help in troubled urban districts, Press Release, The Commonwealth of Massac husetts Executive Dept., December 13, 2005
“Crime rates in Haverhill are among the highest in Massac husetts cities, surpassing Lawrence in every category and even showing that city residents and businesses are the most susceptible to burglary of any major city in the state.” Church, Zach., “Haverhill crime high among state cities; Lawrence shows improvement’ October 01, 2007 Lawrence-Eagle Tribune.
“District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett offered assistance to Haverhill from the federal and state law enforcement agencies in fight local gangs…In Haverhill, there have been a lot of shootings since August, with most of the activity in the Arlington Street and Acre neighborhoods.” (During her testimony, Patricia Frim denied the existence of a crime, drug or a gang problem on Arlington Street where child’s mother resided).
“The Respondent did not have counseling held through the church. Dr. Hilson’s office is at the church.”- Patricia Frim, 21 July 2003 “Dr. Arthur Hilson is not and never was licensed in New Hampshire...” –NH Board of Mental Health Practice Oct. 22, 2003. NH Attorney General refused to charge the Rev. Dr. Arthur Hilson, Pastor, New Hope Baptist Church (See Unlawful Practice RSA 330:23A). (GAL deliberately lied to respondent and court about co-parenting counselor’s lack of professional credentials, failed to reveal conflict of interest that Hilson was her legal client, and failed to inform the court petitioner had 13 year relationship with Hilson. GAL forced respondent to attend the false counseling sessions under threat of having to undergo a $1200.00 court ordered psychological evaluation. Also infringed on respondent’s constitutional rights to freedom of Religion by forcing him to attend counseling sessions held at Pastor’s office (Baptist Church), which favored the petitioner’s religious denomination).
Holder was granted joint legal and physical custody, but deprived of his fundamental constitutional right to make decisions regarding his son’s education and upbringing. To add insult to injury, he was ordered by Marital Master to transport his son across NH-MA state lines to the Burnham School in Haverhill, MA, during his alternate week of legal and physical custody.
Court documents show the GAL admitted that she had been forewarned by the petitioner of the intent to “beat” the daughter, but did not take the warning “literally,” nonetheless, falsely accused the respondent of involvement in the petitioner’s arrest. GAL advocated for the petitioner (mother) even though she had been arrested for assault and battery on the couples’ 18-year-old daughter in the midst of the custody evaluation. Petitioner agreed to plea bargain with prosecutor. GAL falsely insinuated to respondent’s counsel he had something to do with the petitioner’s arrest because of the timing of the assault. Frim also falsely accused Holder of threatening her, thus instigating a controversy that led to the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Counsel withdrew 14 days prior to the final scheduled hearing after refusing to abide by Holder’s decision to seek the removal of the GAL for cause (race and gender bias). Counsel’s withdrawal forced respondent to represent himself after Marital Master Fishman denied his motion for a continuance to obtain new counsel.
The Marital Master Fishman was forced to recuse herself after she was implicated by the carelessly Sandown Criminal Prosecutor Kevin Coyle of directly or indirectly influencing the criminal prosecution of Holder on false allegations for assault (Coyle advised defense counsel that Holder “pissed off” the Marital Master in his divorce by previously asking for her recusal). The criminal charges were dismissed and record of arrest annulled when the ex-wife failed to appear at the scheduled trial date. Holder filed a motion for disqualification of Marital Master Fishman and subsequently prevailed in gaining full legal and primary physical custody by proving what state and federal officials and the judiciary refused to admit or recognize which was Frim’s recommendation was the result of racial and gender bias including perjury, fraud, unlawful conspiracy and other professional and other criminal conduct, (Child languished in the substandard school system for 2 years while Holder fought to protect his right to free non-discriminatory public education in the State of New Hampshire. Holder represented himself and used the evidence obtained from the Mass Dept of Ed (See Facts above) that was readily available to Frim at the time of her initial custody evaluation.
CASE LAW
"Nothing herein shall empower any official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance."- Section 407 Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
“Even if a GAL happens to be an attorney, when acting as a GAL, he or she is a party to the proceeding and not the child’s attorney. Therefore attorney-client privilege which generally forbids an attorney to reveal communications with clients does not apply to communications be GALs and children or other from who they may gather information. Ross v. Gadwah, 131 N.H. 391, 395 (1988). Because due process requires that parents have the opportunity to counter evidence presented to the court, none of the information the GAL receives is shielded from discovery by attorney-client privilege. (Respondent was denied his due process right when his Motion to Compel GAL to turn over the custody evaluation file was denied by Marital Master Fishman. GAL objected on the grounds she wasn’t asked for the file) (She couldn’t be trusted).
“While the role of guardian ad litem is valued by the courts, their recommendations are not binding. Recommendations of the guardian ad litem do not, and should not, carry any greater presumptive weight than the other evidence in the case. The guardian ad litem is appointed to represent the best interest of the child, not to make a conclusive or presumptive determination; that is the province of the court or master.” Richelson v. Richelson, 130 N.H. 137, 143 (1987)
“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the State can neither supply nor hinder.” 321 U.S.
“In a long line of cases, we have held that , in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the “liberty” specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right—to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children” (citing Meyer and Pierce) In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation.” Amendment XIV, U.S.
“The Constitution cannot control such prejudice, but neither can it tolerate it. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.” Palmore v. Sidoti. 466 U.S.
"Public officials sworn to uphold the Constitution may not avoid a constitutional duty bowing to the hypothetical effects of private racial prejudice that they assume to be both widely and deeply held." Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S.
“A core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to do away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race.” Strauder v. West Virginia , 100 U.S.
“Officials shall not assign students to schools and classes on a racial basis, or deny students equal educational opportunity on the basis of race or color.” Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S.
“No State shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin by; (a) the deliberate segregation by an educational agency of an individuals on the basis of race, color, or national origin among or within schools (d) the transfer by an educational agency, whether voluntary or otherwise, of a student from one school to another if the purpose and effect is to increase segregation of students on the basis of race, color, or national origin among the school of such agency.”-Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (20 USC §1701).
“Discrimination based on any characteristic that the Court has declared suspect, i.e. Race and Religion, is presumed to be irrational and constitutionally invalid. When such discrimination is constitutionally challenged, the courts proceed with strict scrutiny and the government carries a difficult burden of proof to justify the legitimacy of its actions.”- U.S. Supreme Court
“Classifying and assigning schoolchildren according to a binary conception of race is an extreme approach in light of this Court’s precedents and the Nation’s history of using race in public schools, and requires more than such an amorphous end to justify it.” Parents v. Seattle School Dist. Et al, 426 F. 3d 1162; No. 05–915, 416 F. 3d 513, Sup Ct.
“A State may not permissibly engage in deliberate conduct or deliberate omissions that have the foreseeable effect of perpetuating known segregation, where its acts or omissions are undertaken in response to and in accordance with the segregative wishes of others that were known to be racially motivated.” United States v. City of Yonkers, Docket No. 95-6182, 95-6206, U. S. Court of Appeal, (2nd Cir), 96 F.3d 600; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 24856.
This Court should give no credence to such cynical, reflexive conclusions about race. See, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U. S. 429, 432 (1984) ("Classifying persons according to their race is more likely to reflect racial prejudice than legitimate public concerns; the race, not the person, dictates the category"); When the State's interest in administrative convenience is pitted against the Fourteenth Amendment's ban on racial segregation, the latter must prevail, when there has been no "serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives that will achieve the [desired goal]," Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306, 339 (2003)
Acts of racial bias and prejudice by court or government officials
cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. Racial bias is a consequence
of intolerance, indifference, insensitivity, ignorance, or negative prejudice, and
harms minorities, fosters unequal treatment and outcomes when justice is sought.
The State court’s ignorance of the larger social context, adverse educational
impact and misperceptions of cultural attitudes towards education shows
that racial bias is still culturally and institutionally ingrained in society and
our branches of government. These individuals have undermined the historical significance of Brown v. Board of Ed in eradicating racism and segregation in education.
Accountability is demanded by society when a judge knowingly and deliberately disregards the facts, the law, and the civil and constitutional rights of others.
There is no stereotype of a racist. They come from all walks of life, education, gender and social background, including those who serve as members of our
State and Federal Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches of government.
Some racists wear Stars, Bars, Stripes, Badges and in this case, even Black Robes.
STOP INSTITUTIONAL RACISM
Ralph Holder
Justice of the Peace
State of New Hampshire
Master of Arts, Criminal Justice
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS-LOWELL
603-382-7459
JUDGE (retired) MICHAEL F. SULLIVAN
A per se rule of disqualification due to the probability of unfairness, applies when the trier has
when he has heard evidence in secret at a prior proceeding,
If original judge expected to have substantial difficulty disregarding his own previously expressed views. IN this case, Judge Sullivan heard evidence in secret against the plaintiff and issued a faulty probable cause finding. Nowhere did the state show or allege any of the elements of criminal threatening.
Bahan and Hannigan conducted an improper investigation by sharing information with the subjects of the plaintiff’s letters, encouraging false statements from them and attorneys who defended the plaintiff’s civil rights law suit against the State.
Van Hirtum transported the plaintiff to the Rockingham County Correctional Facility. Corrections official ignored the Plaintiff's need for insulin medication for his diabetes by threatening to discard the medication if the officer did not take it with him. Van Hirtum and the unidentified corrections official exhibited deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's rights under the Civil Right Act for Institutionalized Persons. .
Nevertheless, there are four well-recognized situations in which an officer's reliance on a warrant will not be considered reasonable:
(1) when the magistrate judge issued the warrant in reliance on a deliberately or recklessly false affidavit;
(2) when the magistrate judge abandoned his judicial role and failed to perform his neutral and detached function;
(3) when the warrant was based on an affidavit "so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable;" or
(4) when the warrant was so facially deficient that it failed to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized.
OPEN LETTER TO THE COURT
Docket No. 07-CR-2467
JUDGE MICHEAL F. SULLIVAN
CONSTITUTIONALLY CHALLENGED OR JUST PLAIN CORRUPT?
“The constitutional requirement mandates that probable-cause determination must be made by a neutral magistrate or judge in order to insure that the deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer will be interposed between the citizen and the police, to assess the weight and credibility of the information which the complaining officer adduces as probable cause. Under New Hampshire
In its Fourteenth Amendment, our Constitution imposes on the States the standards necessary to ensure that judicial proceedings are fundamentally fair. The Fourth Amendment requires an issuing judge or magistrate to find probable cause sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution and prudence to believe that the person to be arrested committed the offense. That the affidavit in support of an arrest warrant is required to demonstrate sufficient facts to support every element of the crime charged. State criminal investigators John Hannigan and G. Michael Bahan failed to even allege any elements of the crime of criminal threatening in the application for the arrest warrant and failed to provide any evidence to support the charges at the trial. The conduct of the state prosecutor, James Boffetti, and his boss, Attorney General Kelly Ayotte was even more egregious because they maliciously sought prosecution of the criminal charges without probable cause. Rather than resolve the problem of Institutional Bias and Racism in the NH court system, these individuals chose to conspire in an attempt to criminally punish the exercise of my constitutional right to freedom of speech.
The well-established principles of constitutional due process require the participation of a neutral or detached magistrate or judge. The evidence in the record shows the State violated my Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights as evidenced by Judge Michael F. Sullivan’s lack of neutrality or detachment; in that Judge Sullivan heard evidence in secret against me; that I was not afforded the opportunity to know a warrant was being sought against me; in that Judge Sullivan signed a clearly deficient arrest warrant; in that the complaint on which the warrant issued could not support a finding of probable cause by an issuing judge or magistrate; in that the application for the arrest warrant lacked detail and specificity and was insufficient to meet the elements of the crime charged; in that Judge Sullivan had a duty to ensure that the warrant conformed to constitutional requirements; in that Sullivan knew he lacked neutrality when he subsequently admitted that he knew the complainants/state’s witnesses against me which he should have immediately disqualified himself; in that he initially presided over my criminal case; and that he subsequently recused himself: but not before he violated my due process rights when denied the initial motion to dismiss.
Whether through legal incompetence or complicity with the state’s corrupt practices, Sullivan knew there was no probable cause that I had committed an offense. He recused himself because he knew the deficiencies uncovered in the warrant application process would have been disclosed if he continued to preside over the case. The investigative, prosecutorial and judicial process was biased, flawed and riddled with severe due process violations. Nonetheless, Sullivan apparently didn’t care because he knew he was retiring.
Since when has the U.S. Constitution requirements for due process changed? Fair trials are an important part of our free society. When a trial judge acts in complicity with an abusive and corrupt criminal proceeding, they are at odds with the very notion of fundamental fairness demanded by our constitution. The laws and provisions of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire New Hampshire
Justice of the Peace
State of New Hampshire
My Commission Expires: 2 May 2012
Master of Arts, Criminal Justice
A per se rule of disqualification due to the probability of unfairness, applies when the trier has when he has heard evidence in secret at a prior proceeding and if original judge expected to have substantial difficulty disregarding his own previously expressed views. In this case, Judge Sullivan heard evidence in secret against the plaintiff and issued a faulty probable cause finding. Nowhere did the state show or allege any of the elements of criminal threatening.
Bahan and Hannigan conducted an improper investigation by sharing information with the subjects of the plaintiff’s letters, encouraging false statements from them and attorneys who defended the plaintiff’s civil rights law suit against the State.
Van Hirtum transported the plaintiff to the Rockingham County Correctional Facility. Corrections official ignored the Plaintiff's need for insulin medication for his diabetes by threatening to discard the medication if the officer did not take it with him. Van Hirtum and the unidentified corrections official exhibited deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's rights under the Civil Right Act for Institutionalized Persons. .
