Judge James D. O'Neill III Denies Motion to Recuse with No Objection From Prosecution and No Hearing Held

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:

Former Sandown police Sgt. accused of misconduct | Local News | eagletribune.com

Inmate lawsuit alleges Rockingham County jailhouse beating - News - seacoastonline.com - Portsmouth, NH

Lawsuit targets Alton police officers - *GJ_CITIZEN_NEWS - fosters.com - Dover, NH

Fired Gilmanton police sergeant will get his day in court | Local News | laconiadailysun.com

Peter Dascoulias | Opinion | laconiadailysun.com

And who could forget the relevant experience of settling this case for the town of Gilford, New Hampshire: 

Town of Gilford settles with strip club owner for $118,000 | Local News | laconiadailysun.com

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. 

Second Motion For Sanctions Hearing Audio

     

Friday, March 5th, 2021 was a day I planned meticulously for, and how my new sanctions motion ultimately shakes out now depends on a Superior Court Judge. The prosecution, led by Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater, decided to cling to technicalities, as lawyers often do when trying to bury the truth. Saying anything more on this subject will only mean backing herself further into a corner she shouldn't even be in. Belknap County's finest, Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier, are the real people to blame for Attorney Heater's predicament, but she can't even say it out loud without totally embarrassing her county and the state. The coverup really is worse than the crime. 

A surprising little scandal seems to be emerging in these two counties now that we have Attorney Heater on the record here saying that her supervisor has nothing to do with this litigation. This argument's also been tried to explain away Attorney Cormier's sloppy gag order request. What is the definition of supervisor in these counties? It sounds to me like nobody's doing any real supervising at all. If Attorney Hornick is not involved in the litigation but is also supervising it at the same time, that sounds very contradictory. 

Listen to "Bergeron Sanctions Motion Against Keith Cormier, Andrew Livernois, Tara Heater and Martha Ann Hornick" on Spreaker.

          My patience for this whole ridiculous process is wearing thin. It is bad enough being a pro-se party in a civil case, but in the criminal courts I'm lumped in with some of the worst practitioners of the pro-se moniker in all of human history. I'm considered a lost cause, even if I have real talent as a litigator and even if the truth is on my side. Nothing I can say can penetrate through the thick walls of bias surrounding me. I fully expect to lose this motion on some bogus technicality or legal loophole, which will not slow me down one single bit. I have planned for each and every possible outcome. I've grown used to not being able to trust the system to be honest. Most often you cannot effectively represent yourself, even if you have a solid case, if you have no way to make absolutely sure the system MUST be honest. 

     I have a strategy in this case to make sure there is no possible way for me to truly lose this motion. It is the judge himself and the system itself that will lose if Judge James D. O'Neill III decides to do absolutely nothing to punish these prosecutors. "Attorney Bergeron" will not be discouraged in the event of a denial. I will only be emboldened. The path to acquittal is much easier in the face of a denial of this motion than it will be if this motion is granted. I'll be thrilled no matter which way it goes. I can work effectively and efficiently with either development. 

    The sad part about the road to victory if there is a denial of this motion is that reputational damage is not by any means reversible. Secrets will be revealed and truths will be told that may actually change careers, and not for the better. Legacies will be destroyed. The true character of public officials will be exposed, and there will be emotional wreckage that might never be repaired. Yet, that will be a level I must go to at that point. It will be my reaction to a system that backed me into a corner. And it will be a beautiful but tragic tale of self-destruction for this judge and these prosecutors. 

     Stay tuned to our site here and follow the case as it inches slowly toward trial. The moral of this story will be: the truth matters. Attorney Andrew Livernois at least pretends to subscribe to that sentiment, but his actions prove otherwise. I recently discovered his GoodReads profile, where he insists this is his favorite book quote: 

“Things come apart so easily when they have been held together with lies.”
― Dorothy Allison, Bastard Out of Carolina

     This prosecution is coincidentally held together by lies, some of which Andrew perpetrated shamelessly. Karma is coming, and justice in the court of public opinion will be much more swift than any justice provided by the local courts. 

Second Sanctions Motion Filed Against Four NH County Prosecutors: Martha Ann Hornick, Tara Heater, Keith Cormier and Andrew Livernois

"Lawyers occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

- Winston Churchill

Q. How does a lawyer sleep at night?

A. First he lies on one side, and then he lies on the other side.

Q. How can you tell a lawyer is lying?

A. His/Her lips are moving. 

     

     We've all heard the jokes about lawyers and their reputation for lying religiously. Lawyers often lie to their clients. Some more bold attorneys lie in court, and some even lie to the media. So, it may shock you to know that in most states in this country the rules of conduct for practicing attorneys include stipulations that make dishonesty and deception a punishable offense. 

    So how do so many lawyers still get away with being filthy liars? The simple answer is attorneys rarely get called out for misconduct. When they do find themselves accused of violating rules of conduct or procedure, attorneys hardly ever get punished with any meaningful sanctions. 

    The power wielded by prosecutors makes their transgressions even tougher to crack down on. Yet there are specific bar association standards that would have you believe most prosecutors are held to even higher ethical standards than regular attorneys. The truth is more disturbing than you might imagine. 

     My second sanctions motion against the prosecutors in my case proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that "the coverup is worse than the crime." I lay out what amounts to a pattern of lies and misrepresentation covering two of this state's counties (Grafton and Belknap) and perpetrated by four of their top attorneys (Andrew Livernois, Keith Cormier, Martha Ann Hornick and Tara Heater). My affidavit supporting the new motion connects all the dots with concrete evidence. 

     The whole saga started with a sloppy request for an order to prohibit pre-trial publicity. Deputy Belknap County Attorney Keith Cormier filed the motion after I sent an email to his boss. The email, sent only to County Attorney Andrew Livernois, included a link to a letter to the editor I authored about this case and Livernois' misconduct. the Laconia Daily Sun printed my letter after refusing to run an advertisement for www.andrewlivernois.com. They encouraged me to write a letter to the editor instead, implying if I did so, they would publish it. 

     Two days before I baited the county attorney into a revenge move with that published letter, he offered this plea agreement in another email sent to me on May 18, 2020: 

"On a plea to one felony count I would offer 12 months in the HOC, fully suspended on three years’ good behavior, with two years of probation, and a LADAC evaluation and follow up treatment as recommended. "

     I immediately refused the offer and told Livernois to get his ducks in a row for trial. We have had multiple schedules for trial that did not pan out for various reasons. Most of those delays were driven by the prosecution. My arrest happened on February 28, 2019. I've been waiting over two full years for my opportunity to prove my case at trial. 

     I also heard from my standby counsel at the time of that offer that nobody else was getting offers like mine, even with the Covid-19 situation shutting down the courts. 

    Andrew Livernois was so angry about being called out in the media that he obviously ordered his deputy to craft what they called a "Motion for Court Order Prohibiting Pre-Trial Publicity." Cormier wrote and filed that motion as hastily as he could, within a mere 48 hours from the sending of my email to his boss. This was exactly the reaction I was hoping for, especially since the motion that Cormier filed was so fundamentally weak. Rather than ask to prohibit only the kind of pre-trial publicity that would make seating an impartial jury impossible, Cormier asked to block "all pre-trial publicity." His other big mistake was insisting in the motion that the order was needed since I somehow broke a rule of attorney conduct that I'm not even bound to follow. 

     I imagine Attorney Livernois thought that it would at the very least appear to be personally motivated if he was the one who actually wrote the request to prohibit pre-trial publicity. Yet, that did not stop him from advocating for the motion personally in the media. You see, the very request from the Belknap County Attorney's office to prohibit pre-trial publicity actually expanded the publicity aimed at Livernois and Cormier. It was a fabulous episode of firing a big cannon at the opposition only to realize that the weapon is not fit to fire and instead explodes in your face. Livernois himself eventually made ill-advised comments to the Laconia Daily Sun about the request, and that move made the filing of a grievance with the Attorney Discipline Committee the logical next step. 

     Even the Union Leader newspaper featured a report about Belknap County's lame attempt to silence me. Despite the fact that I knew Livernois would react out of spite and anger to my emailing him the letter to the editor, I never imagined two newspapers would be following the saga so closely.  The Laconia Daily Sun also published a piece about the ACLU's intervention in the case with their Amicus Curiae Brief. I ended up writing a few more letters to the editor as well. All of them were published. 

     I noticed from that point on, Livernois clammed right up. Suddenly he would offer no comment to the press about anything related to the case. The whole situation obviously caught him off guard. I'm sure he's never had an opponent in court quite like me. Finally realizing he was stuck in a catch 22 and not wanting the gag order request to get to a hearing, Livernois removed himself from the case. He asked for a young deputy county attorney from Grafton County to take it over. The attorney general granted his wish. 

     Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater withdrew the gag order motion almost immediately upon being appointed to the case officially. She also asked if we could possibly meet and suggested she might have a more agreeable plea deal for me. I refused the meeting and the plea deal, which would have knocked down 6 felonies to a single misdemeanor. I want a trial, I told her. The only deal I will accept is I will sign an agreement giving up any right to sue the state in civil court if they drop all the charges before trial. So we wait for trial, because the State seems to think a civil suit will never get off the ground. I look forward to proving them wrong when I am acquitted. 

     Attorney Heater was extremely nice and receptive, but I couldn't help feeling like she was withdrawing the motion for the gag order to help Livernois. I didn't get the letter Livernois wrote when he quit the case until after the hearing on my first sanctions motion. I compiled the first sanctions motion specifically against Cormier and Livernois, but it was also a trap. I wanted Attorney Heater to defend the motion she just threw out and contradict herself in the process. I had no idea that she was actually supposed to be working under direct supervision from County Attorney Martha Ann Hornick until after I received Livernois' request to transfer the case in discovery. Accordingly, there was not much for me to include in the original sanctions motion about the misconduct of Attorney Heater. 

     Judge O'Neill struck the first motion down and gave me a roadmap on how to rewrite it, so I set about fixing the problems he pointed out in his denial order. I knew there was a missing piece to the puzzle, and I found it in the letter Livernois wrote about the transfer to Grafton County. It laid out the whole scheme of deception. Livernois tried to separate himself from the case while also making sure the gag order request didn't embarrass him and his office. Rather than write the request himself, he assigned it to his deputy. When the ACLU got involved and the whole thing looked like a big mistake, he re-assigned the case instead of filing his own withdrawal. It seems impossible to fathom that there was no discussion between Livernois and Heater about withdrawing the motion immediately upon her takeover. That was supposed to make everything appear like Livernois was never actually steering the ship when he most certainly was.

     I don't know whether she did it because Livernois asked her to or out of some sense of loyalty to a fellow prosecutor, but Heater insisted that the gag order request was a good faith attempt to change the laws and rules regarding pro-se attorneys and pre-trial publicity. It was her only avenue of escape, and I knew it. The strategy worked perfectly, as she was forced to defend a motion she just asked to be thrown out. She also defended Livernois and Cormier without one shred of affidavit evidence illustrating any personal discussions with either of them. She made no sense in her objection to the first motion and absolutely phoned it in with her objection to the latest motion. 

     There's still not a singe affidavit to prove that Livernois and Cormier wanted to change the law. That's because  the truth is they just wanted me to be kept silent. They thought the judge would give them whatever they wanted. They never stopped to analyze the consequences of being wrong. Their excuses ring hollow now that they've been caught in the act of deception. My reply brief resulted in the second sanctions motion getting scheduled for a March 5, 2021 hearing date. 

     I have been working incredibly hard to seek every avenue available to me to bring these prosecutors down to Earth. I've tried to work with the Attorney Discipline Committee. They said they would be more likely to act if the judge in the case found the behavior to be improper. Yet, the judge seems afraid to really weigh in on whether this conduct is right or wrong. Typically if what you're doing is right, fair and justified, you don't go to such great lengths to keep it hidden from the press and the public. Unfortunately for all these bumbling prosecutors, the longer they insist this whole charade was true and just, the more they expose themselves to ridicule. 

     As it stands, this is by no means an honest prosecution. These attorneys lied and misrepresented the law. It is becoming easier and easier to justify filing a massive civil case against all parties involved here when the dust settles. From the dipshit detectives who couldn't read a criminal record properly to the prosecutors who dropped the ball time and time again, everyone who screwed up in this case should have to pay the same way I've had to pay. They should have to go through a long ordeal where they have to wait for years to know their ultimate fate. I can't be the only one suffering from these fatal flaws in our local justice system, and someone needs to take a stand against this rampant misconduct from our public servants. 

NH Attorney Discipline Committee Refuses to Docket Grievance Against Belknap County Attorney Andrew Livernois and Deputy County Attorney Keith Cormier

When an accused criminal has more integrity than the people prosecuting him, the local justice system is clearly broken. Worse than the fact that Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier lied and abused their positions to silence me with a bogus gag order request is that they made others in the system stoop to their low level. 

It is truly amazing and astounding what this group of poster children for patronism were willing to go to bat for and assume blindly to be a good faith effort. The filing that triggered all this would have received a failing grade from even the most lenient law professor. Yet people lined up to say it was all on the level, impugning their own character in the process. 

Even the "replacement killer" from another county defended the indefensible, hastily written motion to prohibit pretrial publicity that came out of the Belknap County Attorney's Office. Oh, I forgot to mention the turmoil surrounding this motion led to Livernois and Cormier removing themselves from my case and the Attorney General assigning the prosecution to another county. Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater took over and acted immediately to save Livernois and Cormier. She on one hand withdrew the motion (citing strategic reasons) before a hearing could be held, but on the other hand she defended the merits of the motion when I filed for sanctions. The problem she knew she had going into her defense of that motion was that I warned her it would subject her to sanctions herself for misrepresenting the facts and trying to make a trash pile of junk law smell like a bed of roses. 

It's not so much the collective corruption executed by the original prosecutors that disturbs me. It's the fact that these other attorneys saw this fiasco and jumped into the raging rapids of unethical behavior without a life jacket to save a couple guys they watched jump in with cement blocks tied to their feet. Colleagues were all too willing to look the other way or even back up the behavior that resulted in my recent motion for sanctions. They abandoned their principles to pursue and promote a farce. The sad fact is the pubic pays these people to be the front line on maintaining the integrity of the justice system in this state. Yet, they are nothing but glorified janitors sweeping all the corruption under the rug. It's pathetic.

I made an earnest attempt to report Livernois and Cormier for violating the very set of rules they accused me of breaking (despite the fact that I am not bound by those rules at all as a pro-se party). Brian Moushegian, the spineless general counsel of the New Hampshire Attorney Discipline Committee, covered for his colleague and did a good job of wiping the state's ass on this shit show.

Attorney Moushegian made all the excuses in the world to absolve Attorneys Cormier and Livernois without making any discernible effort to actually investigate the allegations or make any meaningful inquiry at all into the matter. There was not one single word filed in response to my complaint by either accused attorney. Moushegian's rambling responses pretty much confirmed what I already knew: this committee is toothless and will never act against any prosecutor even if a clear report of rule violations comes before them. 

I had one avenue to ask for an appeal of sorts, and I took that road, too. My letter asking for reconsideration made no difference. The whole committee backed the blind loyalty shown by their general counsel. The lies and the lazy motion practice that started this mess just gets compounded when nobody is held accountable for their abuses of the public trust. I jumped through every hoop and followed all the right procedures, even reporting myself to the committee to determine their rules of professional conduct could never apply to me. 

  

The judge in my case might still set everyone straight on this subject by ruling in my favor on my motion for sanctions. I'm hopeful on that front, but there's a real chance he could  actually endorse this kind of egregious behavior out of his own sense of blind loyalty to the institution. I'm prepared for both outcomes. 

Either way this crazy chain of events works out, I'm not about to let this grievance become dust in the wind. The taxpayers of this community ought to know about what happened here and how so many attorneys came together to cover up this unethical mess. If I can't convince the busted justice system around here that something's wrong with this picture, I'll just have to convince the people paying for it.

Motion For Sanctions Against Belknap County Attprney Andrew Livernois and Deputy County Attorney Keith Cormier (FULL HEARING AUDIO)

Listen to "Bergeron Motion For Sanctions Against Belknap County Attorney Andrew Livernois and Deputy County Attorney Keith Cormier" on Spreaker.

I have been preparing for this hearing for months. The Deputy County Attorney opposing me has only been assigned to this case for a few months. The audio says it all, but there is some necessary background. 

First, the Belknap County Attorney's Office sought a gag order against me for publishing a letter to the editor in The Laconia Daily Sun. I opposed it and also managed to get the ACLU involved in the case. They filed an Amicus Brief on my behalf. The Belknap County Attorney took himself and his whole office off the case suddenly, and Grafton County took on the case. Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater is now in charge of the prosecution. She immediately withdrew the deficient and deceptive motion for a gag order filed by the state, trying to play it as a matter of having a different strategy. 

The original gag order request contended that I was responsible for following the rules of professional conduct for NH attorneys even though I'm not even a member of the bar. To clear up any confusion on this front, I actually reported myself to the Attorney Discipline Committee. They insisted they had no jurisdiction over me and those rules did not apply to me. 

I specifically told Attorney Heater that I would file for sanctions and force her to defend the indefensible. She fell for the trap even though I warned her ahead of time not to. She went all in on the original debunked motion, insisting Attorney Keith Cormier wanted to make new law even though it was actually a new rule that would be needed for their motion to have any valid basis. Now it's a waiting game to see if the judge will take action or let these dishonest prosecutors continue to lie and misrepresent the facts and the law.  

Stay tuned for a full accounting of the NH Attorney Discipline Committee's meaningless process of pretending to look at a grievance against these local prosecutors. The whole fiasco involved a ton of dirt, a big rug, and a giant broom wielded by the committee's general counsel. There's now a big lump under the rug, but no dirt in sight.  

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss; Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Defends the Indefensible to Protect Livernois and Cormier

Nearly all of my pleadings in my criminal case pending in Belknap Superior Court have been accompanied by sworn affidavit. I've received only one order in my favor thus far, for a motion to suppress that went unopposed. Yet, the original prosecutor has somehow been able to get every request he's ever asked for from the judge with no such affidavits attached to his requests. The new prosecutor, Tara J. Heater from Grafton County, hasn't asked for anything yet.

Rule 35 (i) of the New Hampshire Rules of Criminal Procedure outlines the requirements related to motions filed in Superior Court. Subsection (1) reads as follows:

“The court will not hear any motion grounded upon facts, unless they are verified by affidavit, or are apparent from the record or from the papers on file in the case, or are agreed to and stated in writing signed by the parties or their attorneys; and the same rule will be applied as to all facts relied on in opposing any motion..."

These rules are made to be broken, and it happens all the time. Attorneys are part of an exclusive club. Judges used to be part of the same club. People who represent themselves are fools, whether the evidence supports that conclusion or not. It's just sort of a known judicial fact with the majority of judges I dealt with in my writing career. It turns out that every time they think that old token wisecrack is true with me, they find out they are sadly mistaken.

The legal profession is in enough hot water as it is without the "defund the police" movement putting such a white hot spotlight on abuses of the justice system. The perfect legal storm that this case was already just joined up with a tornado, even despite the fact that the prosecution decided to withdraw their gag order request. Even without the support of the ACLU lawyers who wrote their brief on my behalf, I filed a sanctions motion, and I'm waiting to find out when the hearing will be and whether there will be witnesses allowed.

Despite my earlier promise to publish the entire sanctions motion, I've changed my thought process on that. There are sensitive matters contained in the motion and the response. Some of them have already been published elsewhere. The last thing I want is to have any member of the press put out information that is not accurate. The pleading and supporting evidence was somewhat complex. It's tough to break down into a typical newspaper article and get all the details correct.

The reason I have to be cautious is the most recent newspaper report on this subject left out a great deal of much-needed context. I am trying to be as fair as possible to the judicial process at this point.

My motion and reply also deal with some very basic principles and circumstances I will discuss here. The cover up is worse than the crime. It is the way they did all this legal maneuvering that's really suspicious. There was a little bit more detail about the Grafton County takeover revealed in the latest filing from Attorney Heater. Attorney Livernois apparently took himself off the case on July 7th. Heater admits in her opposition filing that Rule 3.6 of the NH Rules of Professional Conduct for New Hampshire Attorneys does not apply to me. Still, she persists that Cormier was only using the motion for a gag order to try to change existing law or make new law. She also insists that since my "vitriol" was focused directly against Livernois, it was a mere strategy to withdraw the gag order request and had nothing to do with the motion's lack of good faith.

The contradictions in Heater's objection to my motion for sanctions are not few and far between. One bombshell she drops is her insistence that only the Attorney Discipline Committee has the authority to do anything about violations of the Rule of Professional Conduct for NH Attorneys. Yet I have it in writing that this committee would be more comfortable acting on my grievance if the judge admonished the attorney first for the same behavior. Nuff said.

Attorney Heater adds a new level to this saga by extending the fraud upon the court. She uses the same tired cases and arguments that were already debunked. She insists this is suddenly a case of prosecutors trying to make new law at the Superior Court level when the real basis for their motion was not a law at all. They would need to change a rule to make their argument legitimate. This is not about changing or making law. This is about hiding from the truth.

Livernois and Cormier engaged in a CYA (Cover Your Ass) campaign here. Attorney Heater got recruited to play the new girl, "good cop" role and failed miserably thus far. These prosecutors were so confident that they thought they could print lies and have the judge sign off on them and give them a gag order against me that was not supported by any viable legal framework. Blind loyalty and lack of accountability are also symptoms of a virus that can be as deadly to justice as Covid-19 is to humans.

Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater just proved beyond any reasonable doubt that this "misconduct virus" is highly contagious.    

The Attorney Discipline Committee is still weighing the prospect of docketing my formal grievance against Livernois and Cormier. I will definitely publish those materials once a docketing decision has been made. I will also publish the full audio of the upcoming hearing here when I get a certified copy. Stay tuned!

Andrew Livernois and his Deputy County Attorney Reported to NH Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office for Misconduct...Will Justice Prevail?

Belknap County Attorney Andrew Livernois and his Deputy Keith Cormier are the subject of a detailed complaint I recently filed with the New Hampshire Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office.

Most traditional defense "lawyers" would never take such a drastic step against their brethren, especially if they anticipate having to make future deals for their clients in criminal court with the County Attorney's Office.

I am not a lawyer. I represent myself. The legal term is Pro-Se, which in Latin means "for oneself." I come into every court with this status having to instantly overcome the "fool for a client" stigma attached to self-represented people. It's a deep hole to dig out of in most cases, because judges are very harsh and unwilling to listen to anyone who didn't pass the bar.

Criminal courts are often the most difficult environment to practice law in if you're doing so on your own behalf. You've been arrested and put on the defensive. All judges expect self represented parties to fall flat on their faces if they were never actual lawyers and don't know how things really work. You have to force criminal judges to listen. Show them the facts. Show them the lies told by the prosecutors in their haste to win your conviction. More often than not, obstinate judges will form an instant bias against you and will continuously rule against you. I know this because I've lived it. The only motion I've won so far in my current case is the only one that was unopposed.

No matter how many merits all my past civil cases had at the outset, just about every single judge I appeared before in civil court ruled against me until I put in the work to prove I was right all along. Only one judge ever broke that trend in nearly a half dozen major cases I've been involved in over the years (more about him later).

It all started with a plastic surgery patient who appeared on the HBO documentary Plastic Disasters. The victim of a botched facelift wanted me to write a book about her experience. She started a blog and wrote detailed reviews about what the surgeon did to her. The surgeon sued her to silence her writing and her criticism, using the legal logic that he'd trademarked his name so nobody could insult his practice. It is perhaps the most egregious example of using the civil courts and other means to violate a person's First Amendment rights. The judge's consistent rulings in favor of the doctor without giving any fair consideration to the victim served to ultimately promote corporate greed and minimize the public's ability to hold negligent medical professionals accountable through "name and shame" efforts when justice fails to solve the problem. Throughout the case I was named in various injunctions preventing me from writing about the proceedings or the victim's painful ordeal. A thoroughly biased judge connected to a local health care conglomerate gave the plaintiff everything his law firm asked for. Eventually, even the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals failed me when I asked for the judge to be forcefully recused from the case. Basically the panel of superior judges came back at me with lies and blind ignorance, somehow maintaining that the judge was "done with" the very active case and the bias was "too attenuated" to warrant any do over.

https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/25903-7th-circuit-denies-petition-to-remove-judge


The true victims of all this lazy, reckless legal work to change the system for the worse were Lucille Iacovelli and the many injured patients impacted by medical negligence she helped create a support community for. She committed suicide at the end of a long and painful road of being made out to be a crazed lunatic who was somehow imagining her intense struggle to survive. She persisted amid serious physical damage done to her by a botched facial surgery performed by Dr. Barry Eppley. She simply wanted to share her experience and allow people to see her daily suffering to warn other people of the risks of going under the knife. He just wanted everybody searching for his name to never have to stumble upon her tragic story of what she endured because she trusted him to operate on her. This is how doctors maintain perfect images in the public eye. They use their practice insurance to pay lawyers to crush their outspoken opposition. They get orders LIKE THIS ONE from extremely biased and sympathetic judges.

That one judge who ruled my way right away (No, not Judge King, he sucked) was none other than Christopher J. Muse. Judge Muse heard the case when Lucille's sister hired a lawyer to sue Luicille's estate and I in a Cape Cod, Massachusetts area court just 6 days after her suicide. He refused to OK an order to shut down a Web-site I created to protest all the injustices in that whole saga.

The Judge Muses of the world are few and far between. I researched his background and discovered that when he was a lawyer he helped get a wrongfully convicted man out of prison in a landmark legal case. The wrongfully convicted client also sued the state and won a judgment for his time behind bars. He's the kind of person you know will be fair because he's been there and done it all, and he's truly seen all sides of every issue.

The point is, there has to be an equalizer for people like me to give me any fair shot against a judge who is prematurely convinced just because he's used to believing everything the local prosecutor tells him to and nothing a self represented party attests to. Even if nothing the County Attorney claims is sworn by way of any affidavits and I've presented over a dozen affidavits at this point, Judge O'Neil believes Livernois every time. I don't have to ask why. The County Attorney told me why.

This is a passage from my lengthy grievance:


"Livernois personally sent me an email about the case in which he specifically mentioned that he knew Judge O’Neil did not believe any of my claims. His exact words were: 'I know that Judge O’Neill does not put any stock in those claims either, as he is able to observe how I run my office and prosecute cases day in and day out.  So I choose not to waste the Court’s time in responding.'"



Right there the Belknap County Attorney is telling me one of his main advantages in the proceedings: he basically has the judge eating out of his hand. (hence the above comic parody of my adversary)

Criminal court is not a pleasant place for a pro-se party to operate. Even when it appears a judge may be protecting your rights it may be more of an effort to avoid any meaningful appeal rather than a genuine attempt to listen to your story. I've faced an uphill battle all the way in this case. From here on out that landscape changes. That's because I'm embracing one of my own most powerful advantages: my chance to tell my true story to all the judges in the court of public opinion. 

July 21, 2020 will be the day Judge O'Neil sits in on the most important hearing of these proceedings. Then he will decide on a motion that will finally put the prosecutors in this case in the spotlight. Are they serving the public good or engaged in a wild goose chase at taxpayer expense? 

This commonwealth and this country face two very magnanimous crises at the same time: a rapidly spreading virus stressing the health care system to the max and a growing fomentation of protest caused by generations of piss poor police work coming home to roost. A lack of accountability from the powers that be who did not prepare us to face these problems is becoming readily apparent in both these cases. It's the root cause of both the pandemic and the protest wave. Law Enforcement and Health Care in the United States are two systems in dire need of more significant and meaningful regulation and oversight. I hope this case and the transgressions of these public officials trying to silence me hammers home the point that we need not waste another moment. The time to act to stop these dangerous trends is right now. 

It's time to bring integrity back to the legal profession and stop electing lawyers to public office who refuse to follow their own professional rules of responsibility. 

 

New Hampshire ACLU Exposes Fatal Flaws Behind Belknap County Attorney's Request For Gag Order in Amicus Brief

The Belknap County Attorney's office recently filed a request for an order to prohibit all pre-trial publicity. This is very familiar territory to me. Though I've asked so many advocacy groups to help in my previous efforts, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is the first agency to truly step in to file anything on my behalf.

The Amicus Curiae brief filed Friday by ACLU-NH is a master stroke of legalese. For those who don't appreciate the antiquated language of the law, I can put it in plain English for you. This brief proves that the County Attorneys office used junk law and bogus logic to seek their injunction, which would clearly represent a prior restraint against free speech. Even if the rules of professional conduct apply to me, which they don't, the rule cited by Deputy County Attorney Keith Cormier (3.6) wouldn't even prohibit my speech in this scenario if those rules were applicable to me. Their order would be too general in nature (overbroad) and too easily used to simply silence all my thoughts on the case rather than accomplish any clear and necessary objective on the State's behalf.

This passage says it all about the constitutional weaknesses exposed in this brief:

"Moreover, even if there were a basis to issue the requested order—which there is not—the proposed order is unconstitutionally overbroad. While the practice on commenting on open cases may feel unusual to attorneys and judges in New Hampshire, “the knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power. Without publicity, all other checks are insufficient: in comparison of publicity, all other checks are of small account.” Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1035 (1991) (opinion of Kennedy, J.) (ellipsis omitted) (quoting In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 270-71 (1948)). “[T]he criminal justice system exists in a larger context of a government ultimately of the people, who wish to be informed about the happenings in the criminal justice system, and, if sufficiently informed about those happening, might wish to make changes in the system.” Id. at 1070."

In addition to the ACLU stepping in to help out, the bonehead move by these prosecutors to seek a gag order also brought some local newspapers out of the woodwork to report on my case. The Laconia Daily Sun published my initial letter to the editor as well as this follow up:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/rich-bergeron-public-officials-cant-pick-choose-what-can-be-said-about-them/article_586fccb8-aa58-11ea-b03b-0303ddc17d50.html

Then the Union Leader stepped up to the plate with an article that included one of the best quotes from my objection to the gag order request:

“'Livernois and now his assistant, continue to misrepresent and warp the facts of this case and even the law itself to support their incessant need to silence Bergeron’s true accounting of how this case unfolded,' he wrote."

The tide is turning, and the court of public opinion is in session. The traditional courts are still shuttered. There's no word on when open, in-person hearings will be allowed again.

I fully support the decent, hard working people in local, state and national law enforcement agencies who are truly doing the best they can amid a nationwide backlash against the profession. What I can't support is abuse of power, negligent use of taxpayer funds to pursue a vendetta, and a useless prosecution like this one that is already backfiring on the County Attorney's office.

Ultimately I'm being accused of violating a set of rules I'm not even officially bound to follow by people who violated those rules repeatedly in this case. You can't make this shit up. Not only are these two prosecuting legal professionals subject to the very same rules they want to pin on me, they are considered especially liable when they break the rules. Rule 8.4 of these conduct requirements deals with "The Integrity of the Profession." The motion for a gag order itself violates the spirit of this rule. It's a deception, done out of a sense of revenge and abuse of power rather than on behalf of the community's best interests.

Cormier wrote this "pot-calling-the-kettle-black" fallacy into his bogus request for a court order:

"The purpose of Rule 3.6 is clear – it is to protect the integrity of the judicial system. Extra-judicial statements in the media strike at the heart of the fair and impartial administration of justice and threaten to undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system, and therefore cannot be allowed to occur."

Keith Cormier and Andrew Livernois are by no means examples of officers of the law standing up for integrity. They are attempting to bury the facts at every turn in this case. They are both just symptoms of a greater problem: protecting and thereby perpetuating bad police work. This kind of abuse and waste needs to end, and as the ACLU reminds us twice in this brief, Andrew Livernois is up for election this coming November. Maybe it's time for him to go back to private practice.

Andrew Livernois Doesn't Want any Publicity About His Misconduct

    Belknap County Attorney Andrew Livernois is doing his best impersonation of Forrest Gump, constantly running. He is running as hard as he can from the inconvenient truths that arose from a case against me that never should have been filed. He is so incredibly scared of the truth that he had his assistant file a motion for a court order to prohibit pre-trial publicity. 

     I think it had something to do with this Letter to the Editor I wrote in the Laconia Daily Sun. I sent it to Livernois on Wednesday morning (May 20th), and it was no surprise he had a motion before the court by Friday before 10 in the morning. 

     Let the battle begin, I say. This is First Amendment law. I've been working within those parameters for my entire career as a self-represented party. I've been subjected to injunctions in multiple jurisdictions. My published work is still in place, all over the Internet. 

     The most laughable aspect of this latest motion by the prosecution team is the thin legal argument it is based on. Attorney Livernois refused to meet with me prior to my arraignment, because he felt not being represented by counsel would complicate matters. He suggested the only way we could meet would be to wait for arraignment or get a lawyer. Now, although I have not attended law school and did not take a single legal class anywhere, suddenly I am expected to follow the rules of professional conduct for New Hampshire attorneys in regard to generating publicity for my case. 

     I am being treated as if I am a full-fledged attorney who passed the bar and swore an oath. Why did my standing change so drastically in just a few hearings? Also, when can I take on new clients?

     What's worse is the County Attorney and his young lackey Keith Cormier couldn't even come up with a single thread of applicable law to use as precedent cases. Cormier only cited two pro-se cases which had to do with those self-represented parties being required to abide by rules of procedure and motion practice. He does not have a single case in his pleading where a pro-se attorney was held to the same rules of professional conduct that a licensed attorney is bound to follow. The three First Amendment cases cited to supposedly prove a prior restraint is proper in this scenario are all relating to people who had practicing, licensed attorneys. There is no commonality, no similarly situated parties. 

    The most important question to ask here is why would a professional attorney like Andrew be all bent out of shape about a Letter to the Editor in the local newspaper? Why would he twist the law and seek to squelch the press if he had nothing to hide? Also, it is very interesting that the assistant county attorney refused to characterize my letter in negative terms.The most dismissive word he can find to use about my message is that it contained "brazen" claims. Well, excuse me for being brazen when I have 53 years of potential prison time hanging over my head. 

     The fact is, the truth is a very powerful force. I know from experience. I've ruined reputations and destroyed the credibility of financial criminals in my prior work as an investigative reporter. There are certain truths people are desperate to keep quiet. Some are just inconvenient patterns of thought or habits that people don't want their friends or relatives to know about. Other truths are deeper, more systematic, and more connected to waste, fraud and abuse. 

    The truth is coming out. Fact by fact, motion by motion, despite the delays and in spite of a biased and corrupt system of justice in this community. Stay tuned.  

Andrew Livernois and The New Hampshire Drug Task Force Are Wasting Your Tax Money on a FRIVOLOUS PROSECUTION!

 BELKNAP COUNTY--

      New Hampshire is an "island of prohibition" in New England, the one state where Marijuana remains highly restricted. Heavily regulated medical access to the drug is available, but the current governor will not budge on his anti-recreational stance. The legislature is still trying to present adequate bills aiming toward legalization, but Governor Sununu wants no part of taking any formal step toward the slippery slope to full legalization. 

      The local law enforcement scene is just as obstinate. While the state gets big payoffs from the government to assist with the crack down on opioids that have killed countless kids, your Drug Task Force is wasting ridiculous amounts of time (AND YOUR TAX MONEY!) on going after petty marijuana offenses. Show me the statistics of how many kids weed is killing, please. Show me where the urgent need to eradicate the use of this harmless drug really is, because I'm still trying to wrap my head around the amount of wasted resources that have gone into a case like mine.

      There was a months-long "investigation" initiated on false pretenses to set up the case for the County Attorney here. There were funds put out to pay all the officers involved in the controlled buys and minimal surveillance involved. Additional funds paid to set me up as the State of New Hampshire's marijuana delivery driver. They knew at all times that I was not by any means a drug dealer and did not ever have any significant supply on hand, so they purposely ramped up the charges in an attempt to force me to have to actually connect with the person I acquired their orders from in a time frame that would allow them to tail the real suspect. No evidence in the case points to any other independent sales outside of the ones the task force officers instigated. There is absolutely no evidence of any predisposition. 

     Additionally, these officers leveraged me with the deception of 1.) pretending to be colleagues of mine in the logging business and 2.) acting like they wanted to help me get my rented UHaul out of a ditch in the middle of a snowstorm. So they totally manipulated the situation to make me feel as if I owed them something for stopping to see if they could help me. During the first contact that led these officers to set me up for 6 felonies, there was not one single mention of marijuana. I actually gave the undercover officers my business card and offered to help them if I received any calls looking for loggers in the area they lied about originating from. The lies these officers used to justify this case included representing my record as having two convictions on it which were not convictions at all. Even if they had been convictions, they occurred multiple years ago and were not in any relation or connection to anything to do with drug sales. 

     Knowing these facts, because I told him personally (see my email chain with the Andrew Livernois, Belknap County Attorney) and warned him the case would fail, the local prosecutor decided to push this case to trial. I used an obscure but sensible and novel legal argument called "Outrageous Government Conduct" to get the case dismissed by the judge, but he completely denied the majority of my legal arguments. The completely backwards approach of the justice system, KNOWING I WAS GOING TO USE ENTRAPMENT AS A DEFENSE, was to claim none of my arguments had anything to do with whether or not I sold marijuana to undercover officers. 

     I wonder how any of these legal "professionals" even graduated law school if they think this case can survive an appeal if I lose my jury trial this summer. The problem with letting every major decision in this case hinge on whether or not I sold drugs to undercover officers is to completely ignore and look past the whole outrageous government conduct argument. Did these sales happen is the wrong question to ask under the circumstances. How did the government arrive at the decision to initiate these sales and was the resulting operation a proper use of governmental power, now that is the real question to ask. But, please, don't take my word for it. Consider the words of the County Attorney himself at my hearing on the motion to dismiss:      

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wxt8keeetfkrw3n/fairprocess.mp3

17:30 “The second argument he’s making is more novel. That’s this argument that he was subjected to Outrageous Governmental Conduct. As I explained in my pleadings, your honor, this is a defense that derives from the 14^th Amendment of the United States Constitution. And the idea, which makes sense, is that if the government engages in particularly outrageous conduct which shocks the conscience, that the court could dismiss those charges on a finding that the defendant was not subjected to a fair process.”

     Only someone who was protecting people he considers friends and allies would act the way Attorney Livernois acts in this case. It is no coincidence that Livernois was the Gilford, New Hampshire Attorney when the town was sued in relation to a Drug Task Force raid gone wrong. Livernois covered up the case by settling with the plaintiff in an agreement designed to "buy peace."

     That is relevant information to my case, but the jury will never hear it. It's been excluded from any and all discussion that Livernois had any such history with the DTF, even though two of the officers involved in that case will be witnesses in my own. 

     It is no coincidence that Livernois argued in open court that this case was just a "run of the mill undercover operation" that was "no different from any other undercover buy operation you see." He will not be able to prove that lie when the jury hears the real facts of this case. There were multiple glaring errors and examples of official government misconduct. These errors did not just land in the lap of the task force. They also rest squarely on the shoulders of the county attorney. This man lied repeatedly in this case, refused to allow any meaningful cooperation on my part to eliminate leaks in the local justice system, and obstructed justice by seeking to exclude evidence at my trial that would incriminate people within law enforcement that were involved in my case. 

     Belknap County Attorney Andrew Livernois accused me of using the fact that there were law enforcement leaks in my case as a "ploy" or a trick to gain some kind of favor in this case. As someone who saw his father's life ripped apart by a government leak (who was brutally murdered for cooperating), that whole idea is ridiculous. I would not invent something as serious as this. I even made serious attempts to derail those leaks, but Livernois interfered with that process and made it impossible to trust him. Then he had the nerve to say (again, in open court) at one point that all the evidence on outrageous government conduct that I raised could be brought up at trial:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yxq5ykcugqfcbc1/raiseitattrial.mp3

19:40  “It’s still far too early to even raise that defense at this point because your honor doesn’t have the facts before you of what actually transpired in this case. There will be a trial presumably in this case, and at that trial you will be able to determine the facts, a jury will be able to determine the facts, but you will hear the evidence in that case, your honor. And if the defendant wanted to raise that claim, that somehow the government engaged in outrageous conduct, and therefore he was not treated fairly, he can raise it at trial.”

     That statement was another bold-faced lie from Livernois, because he later successfully moved to exclude the vast majority of the pertinent evidence he claimed would be coming out at trial. It also turned out the idea that I could raise the Outrageous Conduct Defense at trial was another bold faced lie from Livernois. The judge agreed with my contention and interpretation of the law, which required a judge to make the decision on Outrageous Government Conduct before trial. He denied that motion and a motion to reconsider.

     Now take a hard look at what this County Attorney pulled to execute this whole fiasco. All that is nothing but tricks, tactics, and ploys to avoid being called out for what he actually is: a key part of this heavily poisoned process that is continuously wasting your tax dollars on frivolous, victimless "crimes." If he actually opened his eyes and looked at the real facts of this case before he bulled forward to a grand jury with this garbage, this article would not have to be written. Your money would not be thrown out the window for a completely lost cause. 

     A trial will only incur more expenses for the state, but Livernois does not care about spending your money wisely. He's in it to win it, whether it's a fair process or not, whether the case makes any difference at all in the local crime scene or not. He has to protect his friends and the sacred system, which is so full of integrity that at last check, the State of NH received a D- grade for Judicial Integrity (2015). 

  

     Here are a few of the real relevant questions that make the whole case pointless if the answers are no: Was this case initiated, pursued, executed and then consummated in this courtroom in a process that was respectful of my due process rights? Were the the rules, protocols, training and procedures of law enforcement all in alignment to suggest I was actually a worthy target in the first place and deserved to be prosecuted with impunity? Was the entrapment scheme (justified or not, successful in the eyes of the operators or not) actually permissible under the legal parameters commonly followed in similar cases in which convictions are routinely secured?

     It makes no difference that the sales for which I’ve been charged with allegedly occurred during a series of deliveries made directly to the Drug Task Force Agent who initiated this entrapment scheme. They were not independent acts subsequent to the inducement, but were part of a course of conduct which was the product of the inducement. Additionally, it was the DTF agents and their unit command who made a distinct effort to increase the amount of the alleged sales. I never asked anyone to buy more of anything. This was done not exclusively to prosecute me for these felony sales, but in an effort to get to a bigger fish by me testifying against that person or me leading them to him.  

     The state’s representatives here are getting away with playing the victim card, like I’m trying to bring some oppressive and unconventional hammer down on them. In reality, all I want to do is expose the truth. I want to argue a legal theory that even Attorney Livernois admits is a novel one. 

     There has to be evidence of predisposition PRIOR to the police interaction. Before the government came on the scene:

 

The function of law enforcement is the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals. Manifestly, that function does not include the manufacturing of crime. Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy are necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer. However, `A different question is presented when the criminal design originates with the officials of the Government, and they implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute.' Id., at 372, quoting Sorrells v. United States, 287 U. S., at 442. (Emphasis Added)

Mr. Justice Roberts in Sorrells put the idea in the following words:

The applicable principle is that courts must be closed to the trial of a crime instigated by the government's own agents. No other issue, no comparison of equities as between the guilty official and the guilty defendant, has any place in the enforcement of this overruling principle of public policy. 287 U. S., at 459.

Whatever may be the demerits of the defendant or his previous infractions of law these will not justify the instigation and creation of a new crime, as a means to reach him and punish him for his past misdemeanors. . . . To say that such conduct by an official of government is condoned and rendered innocuous by the fact that the defendant had a bad reputation or had previously transgressed is wholly to disregard the reason for refusing the processes of the court to consummate an abhorrent transaction. Sorrells v. United States, supra, at 458-459.

Several federal courts have adopted the objective test advanced by Mr. Justice Roberts and Mr. Justice Frankfurter, or a variant thereof, focusing on the conduct of the government agents, rather than the "predisposition" of the particular defendant. See, e. g., United States v. McGrath, 468 F.2d 1027, 1030-1031 (CA7 1972); Greene v. United States, 454 F.2d 783, 786-787 (CA9 1971); Carbajal-Portillo v. United States, 396 F.2d 944, 948 (CA9 1968); Smith v. United States, 118 U. S. App. D. C. 38, 44, 46, 331 F.2d 784, 790, 792 (1964) (en banc); United States v. Chisum, 312 F.Supp. 1307 (CD Cal. 1970). Cf. United States v. Morrison, 348 F.2d 1003, 1004 (CA2 1965); Accardi v. United States, 257 F.2d 168, 172-173, n. 5 (CA5 1958); United States v. Kros, 296 F.Supp. 972, 979 (ED Pa. 1969).

     Attorney Livernois did not recognize that this case represented the worst possible situation for him to confront in a presidential election year. 2020 will be an earth-shattering year for marijuana reform, especially if a Democrat is elected to the presidency. The majority of candidates running on that ticket will not only legalize the drug for recreational use, but they will also expunge all convictions. These are the official platform positions of the vast majority of Democratic candidates. As I said at the beginning of this case, it is a "lost cause" that drives the whole fiasco. Marijuana prohibition as we know it is over. The balance of interests have changed.

     These times call for unique and dedicated efforts to refuse to keep laying down and accepting the lies our government keeps telling us. The justice system is not working for anyone when it interrupts an honest man's life and forces him to defend spurious charges that the government manufactured. The only lives being improved by this whole scenario are that of the lawyers, judges and agents involved who are collecting their steady paychecks for ignoring the old "innocent until proven guilty" mantra.   

The Crooked, Corrupt Law Enforcement Officers of Belknap County, NH EXPOSED!

   

County Attorney Andrew Livernois (left) is a liar. He lied to a judge in my case, in open court TWICE. Yet, the judge keeps right on ruling in his favor, just about ignoring every good point or statute or precedent case I bring up. What's worse, the judge just filed an order excluding all evidence of law enforcement corruption and leaks who were feeding information directly to the target the Drug Task Force wanted me to roll on.Since I didn't cooperate, they brought the full force of the law down on me even though I was only targeted to help them get a bigger fish who proved "untouchable." Now the state of New Hampshire is prosecuting a pawn and acting like I'm a kingpin.

I planned to elicit details on the leaks and the DTF failing to follow their own written policies during the trial, but this judge just made it clear he wants no part of actually getting to the bottom of any criminal acts perpetrated by officers of the law. Nope, we'll just let them keep leaking and interfering with investigations.

Attorney Livernois lied on two separate occasions in this case. First, he informed the judge that I "had the right" to raise Outrageous Government Conduct as a defense AT TRIAL. The judge's most recent ruling clearly delineates that was a bold-faced lie. Additionally, when asked in open court if I ever offered a counter-proposal to his suggested plea agreement, Attorney Livernois lied and said I never did. The communications I will be publishing a link to at the conclusion of this article reveal without any "reasonable doubt" that I did, in fact, offer a proposal of my own. Rather than explain that to the judge, Livernois lied and said there was no response.

The problem with this Belknap County Attorney is that he has no respect for the fact that there are certain people who end up trapped in the justice system who simply do not belong there. Rather than recognize that fact and remedy it, he just plugs on blindly, treating the most insignificant crime here like the biggest drug sting in state history. The reality is, law enforcement leaks and corruption made it absolutely impossible for me to cooperate. At the same time, I can certainly make the case that my charges were only ramped up so that the Drug Task Force agents could get closer to the target they wanted me to roll on. When they did finally follow and investigate the true big fish, they couldn't get anything on him because of LEAKS that I was willing to expose in court. Now, I will have to expose those leaks here.

Two law enforcement officers, one from within the Drug Task Force itself, actually gave direct information to the real target to help him avoid prosecution. If I did decide to cooperate, that would mean certain death, because the guy they really wanted carries a gun, and he's not afraid to use it if it means keeping himself out of jail for 30+ years. But the judge on my case doesn't seem to give a crap that this DTF agent and another officer from the County Sheriff's Department both betrayed their duty to protect and serve. This judge literally just does not want to hear anything about it.

That is just unacceptable. These are active officers of the law, and who knows if this is the only criminal enterprise they are protecting? They made it impossible for me to give the DTF and the State of New Hampshire any kind of win in this case. And now this judge is giving them a total pass to keep obstructing justice.

Andrew Livernois does not have the best interests of the citizens of New Hampshire in mind. YOUR TAX DOLLARS are being totally wasted on him prosecuting this useless case. Your hard-earned money is directly supporting active corruption being totally covered up by this abuser of his authority. Belknap County Residents, if you really want to see who you actually elected as your County Attorney, read some of the key communications the jury in my case will never get the chance to see right here:


https://nhdrugtaskforce.blogspot.com/p/andrew-livernois-belknap-county-attorney.html 

backup link:

https://www.slideshare.net/fightnewsunlimited/andrew-livernois-belknap-county-nh-county-attorney-email-chain


And here's a few samples of the Livernois emails that are included in the above document:

If you didn't lie, you took the word of the first person you asked. Every attorney, civil or criminal, has a duty to truly investigate the facts of his case. You've failed in that duty. 

What you need to remember is I am a reporter and investigator first and a lawyer only by last resort. I have the ability to find information you think it would be impossible for me to acquire. It's called research. Like, for instance, the attached manual. If I can find that manual with no formal authority or license to be given access, don't you think I can get the policies and procedures you and your DTF buddies are hiding? 

I know they exist, and if you did your homework, you would know you've been hoodwinked, too. Your friends are lying to you now. They are throwing YOU under the bus. 

I am giving you the courtesy of informing you of these facts so you can avoid ruining your reputation and subjecting yourself to years of civil legal wrangling by going to trial. I'm not hoping to work with you at all at this point. As I've said countless times, I don't trust you. You've blown a few chances to end this sensibly, and I will not feel the least bit bad about calling you out for the way you've disrespected me every step of the way. I want a trial. I can win a trial. 

Dozens of people I've dealt with in my investigations followed the very same pattern you are following with this case. It was primarily because they all had a great deal to hide that I could easily find if I looked hard enough. Also, it was because I set the correct conditions for them to make mistakes. I made them trip themselves up, and I'm doing that to you here with better results than ever. It's time for you to make your retreat and give up on this useless war you are waging. You will never win.  

The only offer you will ever get from here on out is this one: 

I will sign a formal agreement that I will not file a civil suit of any kind against you or any representative of the state attorney general's office (including the DTF)... 

IF: you drop all charges against me voluntarily with no conditions.

I would also consider giving up any legal right to publicize this case or the events surrounding it if you surrender this senseless effort sooner rather than later. 

The day the trial starts, this offer goes away. This is the only "reasonable" offer you will ever receive. I don't give a damn if you think I need to consult with my standby counsel to come up with something you will agree to. This is not about ending the case on YOUR terms. You had the chance to do that, and you blew it. 

I know you better than you think I do, and I already know from our email chains that you are a man who values your reputation for integrity, and when the judge sees an accused criminal exhibiting more integrity than you and your DTF buddies it is going to be hard for you to have to confront that you are indeed a documented liar. You are also doing the bidding for liars and not even bothering to check their facts. It's going to be embarrassing to you when a jury hears all about your unethical behavior that all the gutless public defenders you face are too afraid to call you out for. 

I told you all this would happen, though, didn't I? You kept right on chugging trying to convict me at all costs, because I needed you to do that. I knew you would do that. Make it a federal case. The bigger the better. Use the whole weight of the government to squash me. I'll only benefit because it will show you are dropping a nuclear bomb to kill an ant. Why would you do that? Because the coverup is worse than the crime. And I need to be punished because I wouldn't kill myself. 

I'm not giving you all these opportunities to change your mind about this case and me because I hate you or want to see you suffer, Andrew. Honestly, I'm trying to save your hide and give you a graceful way to stop the madness. It's the only olive branch you will ever get from me. I haven't had the chance to appreciate why Judge O'Neil takes your every word as gospel, but Caroline tells me you are a good guy overall. I just know you haven't been one when it comes to this case, and I know my approach brought that side out of you. It's one of those unfair advantages I have as a self-represented party. I've found out that often the "disadvantages" we have in the way of being discriminated against by the process can be far outweighed by capitalizing on the freedoms enjoyed by a pro-se party that an at-bar attorney does not have. 

People hear that I'm representing myself and they expect a blithering idiot making himself look silly for trying. Everybody loves an underdog who steps up and shows he's more than capable of doing the thing nobody expects him to be able to do. No matter what way you think the case is going now, you've already lost this trial. I'm willing to make these concessions purely out of courtesy for the hard work you've put in to get where you are. I know you have a thankless job and sometimes you can get caught in a situation like this when you think it's all for some great purpose and progress toward a genuine goal. Unfortunately, you landed on a dud of a case and it's hopeless to pursue it any further. I know my attitude's made it very hard for you to give me any kind of a win, but you need to remember I'm just doing my job, too. Spending time in a jail cell is not going to help me out at this stage of my life. Probation is useless when I'm already a productive member of society. I run a business. I employ people in this community. I serve the public need. I'm not a dealer by any stretch.

Also, the war on drugs is going to end when it comes to marijuana, and every conviction will be expunged if a democrat gets elected to the presidency next year. 

Even Joe Biden: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzXg2JASFfU

https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20191121/NEWS08/912331786/House-committee-clears-marijuana-legalization-bill

So, the times are changing. Just like I told you at the beginning of all this. And I know you are a democrat. It will be tough to find someone you can vote for who doesn't want to decriminalize weed.

I plan to seek jury nullification as a vein of my defense as well, the third prong. Do you really want to take your chances at trial with all these potential land mines you could step on? 

I know it's going to suck for you, but do the right thing and end this. Blame the task force. They honestly fucked up on this one, and you just tried to pick up the pieces and make a case where there wasn't one to make. I can forgive and forget all that if you just step up and admit it and walk away now, before it's too late and you destroy yourself. I really don't want to see that, but I'll make it happen if you force me to. 


==================

Mr. Bergeron:

With all due respect, the reason why this case is going to necessarily go to trial is because you will not engage in any meaningful discussions about a possible plea bargain, and instead choose to simply throw around accusations and incendiary language.

I certainly recognize that this case is not one of the most serious that my office handles, but if you are not willing to look at the situation somewhat objectively and dispassionately, and instead insist on an “all or nothing” approach, then there is nothing to do but take it to trial. 

You know what you did; you know that you sold marijuana on six different occasions to an undercover police officer.  I understand that you think it’s not fair that you were targeted by DTF, and you think you were entrapped.  But the fact remains that you did what you did.  And so the question is – what is a reasonable punishment for someone who engages in that behavior, given that it is still a crime to sell marijuana in this state. 

Until you are willing to have a reasonable conversation about that question, this case will continue toward the inevitable trial.

As for why I do not respond to all of your wild accusations in front of Judge O’Neill – I see no need to respond.  I know the truth, that there is no merit to your insults and accusations, and I know that Judge O’Neill does not put any stock in those claims either, as he is able to observe how I run my office and prosecute cases day in and day out.  So I choose not to waste the Court’s time in responding.  Things will be different in front of the jury, as you will see. 

This case is not personal to me, Mr. Bergeron.  I am simply doing my job.  You were arrested by DTF following a lengthy investigation, and those charges were brought to me to prosecute.  I have pursued this case in the same way I would any other drug sale case, and will continue to do so.  You have an absolute right to a trial, and if that is what you want, that is what you will get.  If you would prefer to resolve this case some other way, then make me a realistic counter-offer.  If you have questions about what sort of counter-offer would be “realistic”, you should confer with Attorney Smith on that point.

Yours truly,

Andrew Livernois

=======================

I want a trial, Andrew. I want you to have to do the work to try to make this stick. And, it was you who refused the first and only discussion that would have made me a cooperator instead of an adversary. You betrayed any trust I could have had in you when you refused to speak to me unless I had an attorney. Now you know what it's like to want to resolve something without jumping through a bunch of ridiculous hoops, but the other side won't let you.

I have thought this through, and I don't have to or need to sit down with you at this point. I don't trust you, and I don't think you care enough about this case in the first place to really pursue it with any genuine passion. Take it to trial. That's fine with me. I want that more than anything. That is my opportunity to put all the pieces together and show that the DTF is a broken organization that learns nothing from their mistakes, even when lives are lost, or in my case when a life is at risk. 

You did offer to allow a continuance with my father's death, but the point is I don't want this hanging over my head. This almost got me killed. Officer Beaulieu doesn't deserve to be able to skip out on his responsibilities to press this case if he thinks he did good work. I want it ended, and the only way to do it without getting killed for cooperating at this stage since you won't lift a finger to eliminate the leaks, is to win my trial. I'll make that case, and you will look back and regret snubbing me when I first wanted to meet. I bet you already do. That was truly the worst mistake you could have made. 

Taking it to trial will be the next worst mistake, but I'm looking forward to watching you make it. I have revelations that will come out in cross that will shake the system from the ground up.