Judge James D. O'Neill III again ignored affidavit evidence and showed a severe bias toward the interests of the state in his ruling on my motion to recuse him. He will not step down, and he supports his decision by focusing on the idea that a party's disagreement with rulings on pleadings alone do not constitute a basis for recusal. He also copies a big chunk of law from my own motion to recuse him to compile this order, but he spins it with a whole lot of garbage legalese and a compromised view of the case.
Here lies the problem: Judge O'Neill is once again completely ignoring the motion's affidavit evidence.
He actually uses some interesting language to fully admit his "look the other way" attitude about the facts behind this request: "The court further notes a number of pejorative allegations and/or comments submitted by the Defendant concerning age, past and present politics, lack of accomplishment and an alleged admission by the State concerning favoritism by the Court that are neither accurate and/or deemed relevant to the pending question(s) before the court and were not nor will they be considered by the Court in future proceedings." That's a lot of gibberish to explain what he really means here: "The facts do not concern me."
The rules of criminal procedure say the facts should concern Judge O'Neill, as I lay out in great detail through my Motion to Reconsider Judge O'Neill's Denial of my motion to recuse him. If facts are laid out in affidavits by one party and the other party does not refute the testimony with their own sworn account of events, the affidavit-sworn facts should naturally be given the most weight in the proceedings.
Judge O'Neill does things his own way. He considers every word out of a prosecutor's mouth and every sentence he or she ever writes on paper in this case to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He might as well sit on the bench wearing a sandwich-board sign that reads: "No formalities or hard work required, good old boys and girls of the system. In Corruption We Trust!"
Judge O'Neill will most likely deny this most recent motion as well, but that's what I actually need him to do in order to cement his bias once and for all. Any judge who was willing to look at these facts from a disconnected perspective would step down in this scenario. He's fighting hard to hold onto this case, and he is continuously ruling in a manner that betrays his boiling hatred for me and pro-se parties in general.
I am an outlier in the judge's neat little system where everybody is at the mercy of the way things have to be and the way they've always been. I am the guy who walks in and says, "Not today, Your Honor." I don't need money or a government provided slave to the system to help me craft a good defense. The truth is the best defense, and I know that better than anyone.
My original prosecutor self-destructed and re-assigned the case before the ACLU embarrassed him in court. He took the entire county attorney's office off the case. His replacement, Tara Heater, immediately withdrew a truly flawed and unconstitutional request for a prior restraint on free speech. She then immediately tried to settle the case by dropping the charges down to a single count of possession. She's done very little legwork to defend against my allegations and evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. She's done even less work to actually advance this case to trial.
I want a trial. I'm not letting them avoid accountability for their mistakes on this one. I want to confront my accusers. I want them to answer for their lies. I want them to face the consequences of the broken system they perpetuate with their dishonest behavior. But this system will never punish the insider traders if it does not undergo serious, monumental changes.
Grafton County should not have to clean up Belknap County's mess. Yet taxpayer money is flowing right into that cause. For what? Where are the concerned citizens calling for jailtime in my case? Where is the victim in all of this? There are no victims other than me for what the state subjected me to in order to try to snag a guy who was basically protected by law enforcement. So, I am paying the price now because I called out crooked cops. I was willing to cooperate to put those criminal sources in law enforcement out of a job and into a prison cell if need be. Belknap County Attorney Andrew Livernois told me to get a lawyer and disrespected my choice to represent myself. I soon found out why:
And who could forget the relevant experience of settling this case for the town of Gilford, New Hampshire:
That case happened to involve some of the same Drug Task Force agents who made up the case against me. Livernois is a career cover up artist. His history does not lie.
Andrew Livernois is not the guy who should be leading Belknap County into a period where law enforcement reforms will be crucial to regaining the public trust. Judge O'Neill likes him anyway. They have a lot in common--all except for the fact that Livernois never developed friends in high enough places to get him a seat on the bench.