It turns out the Freedom of Information Act somehow does not cover the judicial branch at all in New Hampshire, so you have to rely on the New Hampshire Constitution instead:
|  | ||||
| |||||
Mr. Bergeron,
I am responding to your communications to Chief Justice Nadeau requesting speedy trial reports for Belknap County from November 1, 2020 to present. You cite RSA 91-A as the basis for your request. Please be advised that the New Hampshire Judicial Branch is not subject to RSA 91-A, but rather responds to request for information in accordance with Part I, Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution. There are no documents responsive to your request as reports have not been prepared during the period that the COVID-19 pandemic has been ongoing.
Mary Ann
I had to send a certified letter to get that response, and I included a bumper sticker for this very site in the envelope. Both asking Judge O'Neill for a trial to be scheduled and asking Judge Tina Nadeau for documentation regarding the speedy trial calendar appears to be ruffling the right feathers so far. My response to the above admission probably greased the wheels of justice more than any other factor:
From: Rich Bergeron <rich.bergeron@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Right to Know Request
To: Mary Ann Dempsey <MDempsey@courts.state.nh.us>
Date: Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Right to Know Request
To: Mary Ann Dempsey <MDempsey@courts.state.nh.us>
Please remind Judge Nadeau that there is no precedent or stipulation in the policy itself for fully suspending this policy, pausing it, or refusing to honor the rights it is designed to protect. She and the State of New Hampshire are opening themselves up to serious civil legal action on a class action scale if this attitude persists and monitoring continues to be unlawfully suspended. Please read the policy itself as it pertains to monitoring:
Monitoring System for the Speedy Trial Policy
To implement the Superior Court policy on speedy trial, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court shall require the clerks to prepare and maintain a speedy trial report. In addition, the Chief Justice shall annually designate a justice to be the criminal case monitoring justice to oversee the policy in each court as of April 1 of each year. The Chief Justice as well as the criminal case monitoring justice will receive a copy of the monthly speedy trial report by the seventh day of each month. In consultation with the clerk of that court, the criminal case monitoring justice shall be responsible to see that the speedy trial policy is being adhered to and in addition to see that the criminal docket is arranged so as to avoid the 4 month and 9 month “show cause” hearings to the maximum extent possible through the case scheduling process. The monthly monitoring reports shall list in numerical sequence all active criminal cases pending for longer than 3 months, that is those not dismissed, nol prossed or in which sentences have not been imposed. The clerk of each court shall provide the senior presiding justice in that court with copies of the monthly monitoring reports.
On a quarterly basis the Chief Justice of the Superior Court shall ensure that the speedy trial reports from all ten counties are available electronically to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to assist the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in determining what changes, if any, may be necessary in the monitoring process.
Does this mean the judiciary in this state is using the Pandemic as an excuse to deny countless people awaiting trial their civil rights? The underlined portion above stipulates the monitoring process can be changed, but there is no language in the policy that allows for suspension of the policy for any reason. This policy is codified by the Supreme Court case it cites. A local court should not be able to ignore established Supreme Court precedent law for any reason, and the state is opening itself up to countless "violation of civil rights" lawsuits if this attitude persists. The moment an effective 1st Circuit Court appeal is granted on a case involving this unconstitutional blanket denial of speedy trial rights, the floodgates for civil lawsuits will open.
To implement the Superior Court policy on speedy trial, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court shall require the clerks to prepare and maintain a speedy trial report. In addition, the Chief Justice shall annually designate a justice to be the criminal case monitoring justice to oversee the policy in each court as of April 1 of each year. The Chief Justice as well as the criminal case monitoring justice will receive a copy of the monthly speedy trial report by the seventh day of each month. In consultation with the clerk of that court, the criminal case monitoring justice shall be responsible to see that the speedy trial policy is being adhered to and in addition to see that the criminal docket is arranged so as to avoid the 4 month and 9 month “show cause” hearings to the maximum extent possible through the case scheduling process. The monthly monitoring reports shall list in numerical sequence all active criminal cases pending for longer than 3 months, that is those not dismissed, nol prossed or in which sentences have not been imposed. The clerk of each court shall provide the senior presiding justice in that court with copies of the monthly monitoring reports.
On a quarterly basis the Chief Justice of the Superior Court shall ensure that the speedy trial reports from all ten counties are available electronically to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to assist the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in determining what changes, if any, may be necessary in the monitoring process.
Does this mean the judiciary in this state is using the Pandemic as an excuse to deny countless people awaiting trial their civil rights? The underlined portion above stipulates the monitoring process can be changed, but there is no language in the policy that allows for suspension of the policy for any reason. This policy is codified by the Supreme Court case it cites. A local court should not be able to ignore established Supreme Court precedent law for any reason, and the state is opening itself up to countless "violation of civil rights" lawsuits if this attitude persists. The moment an effective 1st Circuit Court appeal is granted on a case involving this unconstitutional blanket denial of speedy trial rights, the floodgates for civil lawsuits will open.
I look forward to publishing this information and alerting citizens of this state to the fact that Judges refuse to do their jobs and enforce the law in this state and choose to blame the pandemic for their complete failure to fix their internal problems. Judge Introcaso is just the tip of the iceberg. Judge O'Neill is a complete travesty and never should have been appointed. Now we have evidence that Judge Nadeau is abandoning her responsibilities to enforce speedy trial rights in this state. The perfect legal storm my case has become is still gaining strength. You can't deny me my day in court forever, and the civil suit will follow.
Blame the pandemic all you want, but this is flat out dereliction of duty.
Rich Bergeron
It only took about a week after sending this message, but I finally have an idea of when my trial will be thanks to a January 6th Notice of Jury Trial. The final pretrial hearing will be April 19th. That happens to be after Judge O'Neill's mandatory retirement date, so my prediction from my last recusal motion came true there. Judge O'Neill will not be presiding over my trial, which is currently scheduled for the weeks of May 9th and May 16th, 2022.
It is often said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. I eagerly await my chance to shed some serious light on how truly screwed up my local justice system is. The Covid-19 delays have only made the glaring holes in the process more apparent. The sad part is that the evidence will show the state of New Hampshire wasted a whole lot of taxpayer dollars on this case. There's no return on investment for that. There is in fact more damaging information that will come out at trial which will make this a lose/lose situation all around for this state.
The weight and force of the system itself bearing down on me will betray the fact that marijuana prohibition has no future and makes no sense for our state. The botched investigation at the center of the case against me shows how easy it is to corrupt a small-town law enforcement system like ours. This case is dead on arrival, and any halfway intelligent jury will see through the prosecutor's bullshit. Then a new chapter begins where I hold the state and the main players in this mess accountable in civil court. STAY TUNED.
