From: Jean Allan Sovik
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:28 AM
Subject: Request for Independent Investigation
Jean E. Allan aka Jean E. Allan Sovik
fka Jean E. Vorisek Quinn
US Address for Mail: In care of Fritz E. Vorisk
April 10, 2013
Governor Maggie Hassan (OPEN LETTER)
Office of the Governor
107 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-7640 (fax)
RE: Request for an independent investigation into actions in violation of 'Public Policy’ taken against Jean Elizabeth Allan Sovik, fka Jean Elizabeth Vorisek Quinn, and her family, and collectively their properties, both real and chattel; and, to include but not limited to, the Argumentum ad Hominem filed with the Laconia District Court that was incorporated into the October 13, 2009 Diagnosis of the Office of Forensic Examiner of the State of New Hampshire; and, to include but not limited to, the $100,000 "bribe" it took from Martha HW Crowninshield in exchange for releasing the High Birches Water Supply and Distribution System so that the August 25, 1995 illegal foreclosure could proceed.
Dear Governor Hassan:
My last "Open Letter" to you was on January 5, 2013. I received no response from you. Therefore, I have written this OPEN LETTER in the hope that perhaps it may get your attention. My family and I really do deserve closure on this miscarriage of justice.
One of the many ironies in this tragic saga is that, in the main, I was Ordered ‘not competent’ by the Laconia District Court due to the assertions that I made with respect to James Bulger, aka Whitey Bulger. If for no other reason, the State should retract its false diagnosis of me as that it was premature. The US Government’s prosecution of James Bulger is due to begin on June 10, 2013. If one were to read the pre-trial filings, as I have, they would find out very quickly that neither the Government’s prosecutors, nor Mr. Bulger’s defense lawyers have resolved many of the issues in which the State’s diagnosis depends on. These issues include both fact and law.
A few days ago in re: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMES J. BULGER, Defendant. Criminal No. 99-10371-DJC - GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE PRIOR RULING ON ISSUE OF IMMUNITY, the Prosecutor cited "The law of the case doctrine". This Doctrine posits that "when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case. The doctrine … contemplates that a legal decision made at one stage of a … proceeding should remain the law of that case throughout the litigation, unless and until the decision is modified or overruled by a higher court. That branch binds, for example, a … successor trial judge who steps in to complete a pending case. United States v. Moran, 393 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted)." One of the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine, the prosecutor stated was only if a "manifest injustice" injustice has occurred. See Ellis v. United States, 313 F.3d 636, 648 (1st Cir. 2002).
The US prosecutor continued to outline the "steep uphill climb" that a finding of ‘manifest injustice’ requires which is at a bare minimum, ‘a definite and firm conviction that a prior ruling on a material matter is unreasonable or obviously wrong’, and "resulted in prejudice". Moran, 393 F.3d at 8 (citing Ellis, 313 F.3d at 648 & n.5).
In III. b. iii. the prosecutor raised, in the government’s memorandum, a legal issue that goes to the heart of my complaints. The prosecutor argued that "Even If All Of Bulger’s Latest Immunity-Related Claims Are Assumed True, His Agreement With O’Sullivan Is Void As Against Public Policy. [emphasis supplied] In the First Circuit, "an agreement to achieve mutual benefit from the parties’ cooperative violation of the law … even if explicitly agreed to by both parties, is void and unenforceable as against public policy." Kiely v. Raytheon Co., 105 F.3d 734, 736 (1st Cir. 1997). See also Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72, 77 (1982) ("our cases leave no doubt that illegal promises will not be enforced in cases controlled by the federal law [emphasis supplied]"); United States v. Mardirosian, 602 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2010) ("It is well-established that contracts for illegal purposes are void as a matter of public policy."). [emphasis supplied] Moreover, in the context of enforcing alleged immunity agreements, the Eighth Circuit has held: "One reason for denying the specific performance of a contract is that the compelled act or forbearance would have an adverse effect on some aspect of [ - 13 - ] the public interest." United States v. McGovern, 822 F.2d 739, 747 (8th Cir. 1987) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 365 comment a (1981))."
The decision to prosecute may be reviewable if it violates the constitutional rights of the accused. A decision not to prosecute, on the other hand, such as pursuant to an immunity agreement, may not be overturned by a court because this decision belongs solely to the Executive Branch. United States v. Winter, 663 F.2d 1120, 1133 (1st Cir. 1981), abrogated on other grounds by Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997).
On October 13, 2009 the State of New Hampshire filed an abusive Argumentum ad Hominem, a personal attack, on my competency. The attack, assuming that it was authorized, was made by Prosecutor Robert Libby. If you have not read a copy of the October 13, 2009 diagnosis, it has been posted on nhjustice.net. Prosecutor Libby’s decision not to prosecute me in re: 09-cr-1293-4, Laconia District Court, Laconia New Hampshire case, according to US v Winter as cited above "may not be overturned by a court because the decision belonged solely to the Executive Branch"; in which you are now Governor.
If an independent investigator would be appointed by you now, they would find that the State of New Hampshire committed ‘manifest injustices’ against me, and my family, and their collective persons and businesses.
The independent investigator would find that the State of New Hampshire acted at all times against public policy.
Certain facts that the independent investigator would find are that:
In 1994, the State of New Hampshire issued a large ground water permit to Senter Cove Development Company, Inc., a New Hampshire corporation whose sole stockholder was Business Assets Management, Inc. that allowed for the extraction of up to one million gallons of pure spring water daily. (This fact has been documented in communications to NH AG K. Allen Brooks (SOURCE). Communication also referenced as an INQUIRY link in 03/01/2013 correspondence to NH State Senator REAGAN (SOURCE).
In 1996, Netmark International, Inc,, a Massachusetts corporation whose sole stockholder was Jean E. Allan Sovik, fka Jean E. Vorisek Quinn, obtained permits from many states, to include New Hampshire and Massachusetts to sell its retail brand of spring water: High Birches Mountain Spring Water – Starts Pure-Stays Pure- The Sustainable Source to the general public. (This fact has been documented in communications sent to NH AG K Allen Brooks (id) see REAGAN citing)
In 1997, Netmark International, Inc filed a superior lien on the Water Supply & Distribution System as per requirements of its state retail permits. (This fact has been documented in communications sent to NH AG K Allen Brooks (id) see REAGAN citing.
It is a matter of public record that on or about September 11, 1997 the main production well and several monitoring wells incorporated into the Water Supply & Distribution System was sabotaged with a cocktail of chemicals to include heavy metals and other carcinogens. And, then a few weeks later another monitoring well of the Water Supply & Distribution System was also sabotaged with a cocktail of carcinogenic chemicals.
It is a matter of public record that the State of New Hampshire took aggressive steps to gain jurisdiction over the sabotage. It even inserted itself into an ongoing civil RICO case that had been filed in Massachusetts Federal Court, in which the plaintiffs were, among others, Netmark International, Inc., Senter Cove Development Company, Inc., me personally, and as Trustee of the Jean E. Vorisek Family Trust. The defendants were Martha H.W. Crowninshield, Richard A. Cabral, and the FDIC, and John Doe and Mary Roe.
It is a matter of public record that after causing the civil RICO case to be dismissed by the Federal Court Judge who cited among other issues, New Hampshire’s desire to ‘police its own environmental problems’, the State of New Hampshire, once gaining sole jurisdiction, did NO investigation of the sabotage; but, instead made the statement that I was the sole suspect.
Then in an extraordinary decision that clearly was against public policy, the State of New Hampshire struck a deal with one of the civil RICO Defendants, Crowninshield, that in exchange for a payment, some may call it a "bribe", of $100,000 it would allow Crowninshield to totally control the clean up activities at the contaminated site. The quid pro quo was that that State of New Hampshire would release its lien on the contaminated site in time for Crowninshield’s solely owned company, Bridgston, to foreclose, not only on the land that she had allegedly made a claim against, but also the Water Supply & Distribution System, upon which she had no claim. This fact is known because the public foreclosure action advertised ‘copious amounts of water'.
Armed with the above facts, the independent investigator, would most likely form a working theory that if, as the law states, the State’s "Deal" with Crowninshield was, on its face, against PUBLIC POLICY, and it is ‘null and void’. More likely than not, the State of New Hampshire has known this fact for quite sometime, and that knowledge is most likely the State of New Hampshire’s decision to file its October 13, 2009 (personal attack) diagnosis that I am ‘not competent’. Thus, making certain that I could not raise an affirmative defense in re: 09-cr-1293-4, Laconia District Court, Laconia New Hampshire. A reasonable person may find that the State's motivation not to prosecute was to protect its ill-gotten gain of $100,000, among other benefits that are yet to be discovered. The "DEAL" with Crowninshield is, by law and fact, ‘null and void". The State of New Hampshire was not legally authorized to release the Water Supply & Distribution System property to be foreclosed up. Ergo, the August 25, 1999 foreclosure is also ‘null and void’; along with all the other foreclosures that relied upon similar facts, and law.
At this time, I would suggest that the public record, as posted on nhjustice.net and other blogs to include thetrialofwhiteybulger.com, will be a good source of discovery information for the newly appointed independent investigator. Clearly, by this time it should be recognized by you that the State’s own Office of Attorney General cannot be allowed to participate in the investigation since it has been involved in the ‘cover-ups’ to include the suspicious death and disappearance of my mother Agnes Sovik Allan, while in the jurisdiction of then NH AG Kelly Ayotte.
If you wish to further discuss my request, I can be reached at the above addresses.
Jean E. Allan Sovik, in all her legal capacities