Superior Court Clerk Admits No Speedy Trial Reports Have Been Created During Pandemic, Trial Gets Scheduled Again

     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: 

Mary Ann Dempsey <MDempsey@courts.state.nh.us>
Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 3:34 PM to me, Mary

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>

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.

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. 

State Orders Scheduling of Trial, Balks at Requests For Speedy Trial Reports

The State of New Hampshire continues to drag out my case despite Judge O'Neill recently ordering that a trial be scheduled. It turned out to be the fastest order the judge ever filed in response to a motion I filed. It came the very next day after the prosecution filed a limited objection to the initial motion to schedule the trial. 

That motion to schedule my trial reiterated the fact that my Speedy Trial rights are actively being violated. I also used very specific language in the motion to explain that I was asking the judge to decide my request on an either/or basis. Either schedule a trial promptly or dismiss the case. 

I don't always plan for things to work out perfectly in scenarios like this, but if this was a fishing expedition, Judge O'Neill's response was akin to a big fat fish jumping in the boat before you even bait a hook. Not only did he provide the most timely order possible for me, but he also wrote his order as if he only read the limited objection to any possible dismissal that Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater filed. It was written in a way that screams BIAS! I guess he forgot what the actual motion proposed as a prayer for relief and revealed his ultimate, unwavering loyalties to whatever the State suggests in any given scenario. 

Essentially the language of my motion meant granting the request to schedule the trial would negate the need to deny the conditional request to dismiss. This concept completely escaped Judge O'Neill thanks to the way Attorney Heater wrote her objection. His order just made it clear that he would never dismiss this case voluntarily. He also confirmed he is eating out of the prosecutor's hand here. He purposely provided a ruling based only on her limited objection rather than taking the time to properly analyze the actual relevant choice I asked him to make in this scenario. He's like the proverbial horse with blinders on. That's how prosecutors use him to get whatever they want. They lead him to water and he drinks, even if it's a puddle of oil. 

Judge O'Neill filed his order on November 19th. There is still no trial scheduled as of today, December 6th, 2021. He additionally decided not to hold any hearings on the last few motions despite religiously holding them for every other motion. If Judge O'Neill remains on this case I will have a guaranteed appeal should a jury convict me of the charges. It is truly a no-win situation for the state, but they will press on anyway. It's just another huge issue with the system as we know it. There is no mechanism for the state admitting to a prosecution being misguided and abandoning all charges. They would rather try to make these bad charges stick than figure out where things went wrong and make sure it never happens again. Everyone involved on behalf of the prosecution will look like morons when the smoke of the trial clears. So it appears the name of their game is delay, delay, delay. 

Meanwhile, my speedy trial rights continue to be violated. Stay tuned to find out if I will be able to secure crucial evidence for my case. I have filed a Freedom of Information Act request for all materials regarding speedy trial calendars for Belknap County Superior Court beginning 9 months from my only waiver up to the present day. So far just asking for these documents to be delivered by either the prosecution or the Chief Justice has been a wasted effort. Their reluctance to cooperate tells me they have something to hide. 

At trial, I will be highlighting the fact that Marijuana prohibition is a waste of time and money. The real problem is opioids, and people are dying as a result of our state spending too much time pretending Marijuana use is somehow a greater threat to public safety. If you want my opinion, our state is chasing the wrong dragon. 

Judge James O'Neill III Denies Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Speedy Trial Grounds

 

     

     I filed a motion to reconsider the denial of my recent motion to dismiss for speedy trial reasons on August 11th, 2021. The current prosecutor, Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater, filed no objection to my motion. Judge O'Neill, fresh off a vacation, denied my motion to reconsider on August 31st. 

     Am I surprised? Hardly. Judge O'Neill is still on vacation as far as I can see. This was no adequate response to the concerns, facts and precedent cases I raised. It was a one-page bare denial in the wake of the publishing of my most recent letter to the editor in the Laconia Sun. 

     New Hampshire Statute requires judges to retire at 70 years of age. Judge O'Neill is set to reach that milestone on March 30th, 2022. By April Fool's Day next year, he'll be on a permanent vacation. Meanwhile he's admitted to only completing 5 jury trials since April of 2020. He blames Covid-19 for the backlog his own incompetence and lack of a work ethic created in my case. He is consistently late with decisions on my motions while ruling fairly quickly on prosecutors' motions.  

     The state is paying a ridiculous amount of rent for the Laconia Courthouse complex where my trial is supposed to be held. The courts are not maximizing their investment and using this building to its full potential. Instead of finding a way to schedule my trial without violating my speedy trial rights, the state continues to give currently incarcerated defendants first priority when it comes to hearings and trials. The State, through Judge O'Neill's incompetent and biased rulings, is effectively indefinitely prolonging the denial of my speedy trial rights. This is a direct violation of my civil rights that I believe qualified immunity will not protect this judge from in the event I have to file a future civil lawsuit.

    Because the state cannot figure out a way to get rid of bad cases like mine or otherwise speed up the process to get to trial faster, I may be forced to wait another 2 and a half years for my trial. This is indefensible behavior on Judge O'Neill's part. These orders would not survive an appeal, and if that's not an option for me a Writ of Mandamus may be my last resort to loosen this old stubborn fool's grip on this case. I refuse to let a crooked system beat me by ignoring the facts and their ethical duties to be unbiased. 

    Stay tuned for new developments. Later this week we will feature a special audio interview with a genuinely honest career police officer who bucked the trend of corruption during his time working for the Philadelphia Police Department. 

Judge James D. O'Neill III Denies Motion to Dismiss, Shows Continuing Bias Toward Prosecutors

   

Speedy Trial rights are a fundamental part of the United States Justice System. I filed a fairly straightforward Motion to Dismiss my case recently based on the violation of these rights. I included these four exhibits: 

Exhibit 1: Superior Court Speedy Trial Policy

Exhibit 2: Case Summary 

Exhibit 3: Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater Says She's Ready for Trial

Exhibit 4: Bare Response By Attorney Heater to Second Motion For Sanctions

     I had a strong feeling the Judge James D. O'Neill III would find some reason to deny this effort like he has with virtually every other motion I've filed. Initially, as required in the Speedy Trial Policy for the Superior Court, the state scheduled a hearing on this motion. Judge O'Neill cancelled the hearing with no explanation other than a cryptic notation explaining "hearing not needed." I had a good idea that this was not gong to end well as far as me getting any dismissal. At the time he was mulling the whole thing over he also received the news that my judicial conduct committee complaint against him had been summarily rejected by his colleagues. 

     Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater filed an objection to this motion to dismiss after filing no response at all to my request to recuse Judge O'Neill. The judge kept himself on the case anyway. Attorney Heater's multiple mistakes and failures to recall pertinent details of the case were only partially explained away in a quick "Motion to Amend" that she had to file. 

     I reminded Attorney Heater in my reply brief that she left a few other mistakes out of her motion to amend. I did also make a mistake in my own pleading, though. I didn't consider the motion to amend filed by the prosecutor to be a motion at all. I guess it seemed more like a confession to me. At any rate I insisted she was asking for a motion to be granted when there was no motion pending from the prosecution. 

     

     Although I had no reason to object to her motion anyway, it could have been an "assented to" motion that wouldn't need a judge's approval if I had a better relationship with the opposition. Unfortunately, I cannot trust anyone who would lie and initiate in a coverup as part of her entry into the case. This probably would have bolstered my argument on the idea that the delay represents "actual prejudice" if I had been able to raise it at the cancelled hearing. Her having to correct the record in the first place prejudices my case. I'm dealing with a prosecutor who doesn't know what she's doing and admits to needing the defendant's "help."

    Judge O'Neill's order on the motion to dismiss ignored lots of legal points, valid precedent cases, and the facts revealed in the case summary about the behavior of the prosecutors. He considered all the 17 months of contested delays to be directly related to Covid-19 despite the record revealing otherwise. He even specifically stated at the first sanctions hearing that the Covid-19 situation was a "significant problem the state is facing."

    The pandemic has never been a problem as far as me pressing my case. I've never seen it as an obstacle at all in meeting all my deadlines and appearing for all in person and remote hearings that were scheduled. The Covid-19 delays are the state's problem, as Judge O'Neill articulates so well in the above clip. The state should be worrying about more serious crimes and more dangerous criminals. They should be using this pandemic to jettison junk cases like mine, and instead they are treating me like I'm a threat to society. The state is instead only using this virus as a crutch, an excuse to engage in further incessant delay.  

    Judge O'Neill also made enough additional mistakes in his order to make for an excellent motion to reconsider. I will definitely be filing that in the near future. 

    I always have a Plan B for these scenarios (since it's always my expectation to lose every motion), but I definitely felt fundamentally wronged  by this latest order. I couldn't wait to draft a formal response for the courts that would adequately express my frustration. I felt there needed to be something a little more urgent. I decided another letter to the editor was in order, and the Laconia Sun put it in the centerfold spot right under the political cartoon in this weekend's paper:

Rich Bergeron: Judge's retirement will make way for justice | Letters To Editor | laconiadailysun.com

     Stay tuned as this story develops. We are not done fighting this one by any means. I will not let this judge's bias and lack of ethics and morality stop my march to justice. I actually want a  trial, but I thought the state would want to take advantage of an easy way out. Now, since they refuse to dismiss the case, we'll see if they will actually schedule me for trial or subject themselves to another motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. 

Toothless NH Judicial Conduct Committee Refuses to Investigate Report on Judge O'Neill

Despite knowing it wouldn't amount to more than a fart in the wind as far as the committee was concerned, I filed an extensive report on judicial misconduct regarding Judge James D. O'Neill recently. 

Here are the exhibit links:

EXHIBIT 1, EXHIBIT 2, EXHIBIT 3, EXHIBIT 4, EXHIBIT 5, EXHIBIT 6, EXHIBIT 7, EXHIBIT 8, EXHIBIT 9

The committee discussed the complaint and dismissed it by simply claiming they had no jurisdiction. I suspect their lack of interest is directly related to the fact that Judge O'Neill is set for a forced retirement as of March 30, 2022. He is an alternate member of the committee. They are not going to go after one of their own on his way out the door:

http://sos.nh.gov/GC2.aspx (See Page 156, Judge O'Neill entry)

https://casetext.com/statute/new-hampshire-revised-statutes/title-51-courts/chapter-493-a-retired-judges-judicial-referees/section-493-a1-c-retired-justices-over-70-years-of-age

This report was not really for the JCC, though. It was for you: my loyal, worldwide audience. If the powers that be don't want to try to change the system for the better, people like me will have to change it in our own way. If you have your own complaints about Judge James D. O'Neill III, please send any information and documentation you have to boxer_47@yahoo.com. 

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. 

Motion to Recuse Judge James D. O'Neill III Officially Filed

 

A motion to recuse Judge James O'Neill III from my case is now my last shot to try to gain equal footing with the prosecution. The motion lays out my reasoning for asking Judge O'Neill to step down. Hs bias permeates the case and makes it impossible to proceed without getting him removed from the case. 

Please reach out to me at boxer_47@yahoo.com if you've also had problems with Judge O'Neill. I am preparing a report to send to the NH Judicial Conduct Committee. It is not enough that Judge James D. O'Neill III is only prevented from ruling in my case. He should be removed from the bench for his "look the other way" mentality when it comes to prosecutorial misconduct. 

If you've been before Judge O'Neill recently (in the past year), please fill out this Survey to let his superiors know how he's really performing his duties:

JAMES D. O'NEILL, III, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION-2021* Survey (surveymonkey.com)

Judge O'Neill Strikes Down Sanctions Again, Looks the Other Way on Prosecutor Misconduct and Clings to Technicalities

     Judge James D. O'Neill III has no time for holding prosecutors accountable for rules of attorney conduct. His latest ruling on my most recent sanctions motion is simply a case study in cronyism. This is how you toe the political line as a state-loving judge. This is how you prove you're unfit for the bench. Rulings like this make you wonder how Judge O'Neill even got a hold of a gavel in the first place. It's a good thing there are archives out there with gems like this story about how very lucky Judge James was to get his robe in the first place: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/12/24/a-pussycat-with-claws-sununu-leaving-mark-in-home-state/695616c3-8296-4029-867e-a841eb4be72c/

The most compelling paragraph of that piece is this one:

"The bar went ahead with its evaluation and, in a letter to Sununu, Tober wrote that many lawyers had described O'Neill as "demeaning" and "intimidating," and that the association's board of governors "could find no evidence of the requisite fairness and respect . . . that are the hallmarks of our courts.""

It only took a little bit of digging around and asking the right people questions to also secure this confirmatory report: 

https://www.slideshare.net/fightnewsunlimited/judge-james-d-oneill-and-the-truth-about-how-he-earned-his-place-on-the-bench 

Politics trumped logic and experience when it came to this judge's appointment. Politics are still influencing Judge O'Neill's decisions to this day. He won't do anything about attorneys who lie and misrepresent the law, because he's actively misrepresenting himself as a competent, unbiased judge. He didn't respect the rules of the game to get where he is, so why would he hold prosecutors to any code of conduct? 

I suppose I need to cater to this judge's appetite for technicalities. I'm sure I can think of a few technicalities that could lead to a dismissal. At the very least, more people should be aware of his history in this county. They don't call him "No Deal" O'Neill for nothing. 

If you've appeared before Judge O'Neill recently, take some time to fill out this survey: 

JAMES D. O'NEILL, III, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION-2021* Survey (surveymonkey.com)

Judge James D. O'Neill III Refuses to Sanction Prosecutors And Paves the Way For Another Sanctions Request

 

Judge James D. O'Neill III ruled against my motion for sanctions in his latest order in my case. 

He also laid out a roadmap for what would be needed to secure a better ruling on such a motion. He cited minimal points of law and fact, and the ruling itself did not reflect any research or careful consideration, unfortunately. 

Even though Judge O'Neill had over a month to review all the material after the September 9th hearing, this ruling seems rushed and slapped together quickly. 

It's as if someone had to remind him he'd forgotten about this particular motion. Coincidentally (or maybe not), I emailed Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater the day before his ruling came down. I told her I thought Judge O'Neill knew he had to do something in this scenario and that was what was taking him so long. I also asked for a key piece of discovery. I wanted any and all communications regarding Belknap County Attorney Andrew Livernois removing himself from my case. I got this: 

https://www.slideshare.net/fightnewsunlimited/andrew-livernois-quits-my-case-and-blames-me-for-his-misconduct 

This particular document says it all. Andrew Livernois panicked after the ACLU agreed to write an Amicus Brief on my behalf. He and his deputy were under fire in the press, and he couldn't stop it. Instead, he figured he'd just change the target, and I would leave him alone. Livernois obviously had conversations with Heater and her boss Martha Ann Hornick. Then he dumped the case on them without any sense of this being a random assignment. This document shows it was all approved by the State of New Hampshire's Attorney General: Gordon MacDonald. 

What was the first thing Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater did after Livernois talked to her and her boss? Her first act as a prosecutor on this case was to withdraw the gag order request. Livernois and Cormier knew they were going to lose if it went to a hearing. Rather than tuck tail and retreat on their own, they forced another prosecutor to be brought in to engage in the coverup. That prosecutor then immediately drops the whole gag order request with the lame explanation that it was only a matter of "strategy" and not a matter of the motion having no merits. 

Lo and behold, when I filed my motion for sanctions, Attorney Heater also made the argument that Livernois and Cormier were trying to make new law with their gag order request. The whole basis for that request was based upon my breaking a RULE, not a law. The request was unconstitutional. It was overbroad, and it was not narrowly restricted at all. The more they try to cover up this mess, the more they all implicate themselves in even MORE misconduct. The paper trail doesn't lie. 

These are not the actions that state employees should be engaging in if their interest is really in promoting any semblance of true "justice." 

From here my "strategy" is simple. I will file an amended motion for sanctions. I will make sure it is ironclad, addressing all of Judge O'Neill's superficial concerns. It will be concise and comprehensive, naming exactly what sanctions should apply, what authorities there are to back up such sanctions, and why it simply does not matter that the gag order was withdrawn by a new attorney at the 11th hour. The argument that pulling back from that hearing did not compromise my case in any way is also about to be thoroughly debunked. The motion that results will be one that Judge O'Neill will either feel obligated to act on out of his unbiased dedication to being fair and impartial, or he will simply bury it out of loyalty to the state and the current governor's anti-marijuana stance. He'll use no law or research to do so and will issue an even more opinionated and weak order than the last one. 

Judge O'Neill has been ruling against me religiously, constantly trying to remind the court of my pro-se status, and continually ignoring affidavit evidence in order to favor the prosecution. I even have it in writing that Attorney Livernois knew Judge O'Neill trusted him more because of all the times he's appeared before the judge. It's a rigged system as it is, but as soon as I threatened a civil suit upon the event of an acquittal (in open court), the whole landscape changed. The real coverup and the most coordinated effort to railroad me began at that very moment. It was me against the state from the jump, but after that threat it really became me against THE STATE. 

I'm not intimidated. If Judge O'Neill continues to ignore the law and precedent cases and legal statutes and affidavit evidence, I will have no choice but to ask for his recusal. If he will not police his own courtroom adequately and penalize these officers of the law for abusing their authority and misrepresenting the law and the facts, he will force my hand. 

If the circumstances don't change, I will file a judicial complaint against him and contribute to the next congressional bill to force him out of office. Recusal is not my only avenue of relief if he will not do the job he was sworn to do with fairness and impartiality. I will keep the whole system honest.