Jean E. Allan aka Jean E. Allan Sovik fka Jean E. Vorisek Quinn
US Address for Mail: In care of Fritz E. Vorisk
July 17, 2013
Attorney General Joseph Foster
NH Department of Justice
33 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301
RE: 42 U.S.C. § 1983, commonly referred to as "section 1983" provides:
Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Dear Attorney General Foster:
As you are aware, Assistant Attorney General Strelzin, who is in charge of the homicide investigation into the brutal stabbing of Mary Fiott Danboise, who was the current wife of Dr. Reginald Danboise, and I have been communicating for the last few days. The basis of our communications were to inquire whether my family could offer our assistance in developing a profile of the mindset of Dr. Danboise that prompted him to commit the homicidal act of which he has been accused. Considering that Dr. Danboise is now also deceased, a present psychological evaluation of him is impossible. Therefore, our family offered to share and/or provide our personal experiences to Attorney Strelzin. He has essentially rejected our offer. It is his discretion to do so. You can review the emails as they are in the possession of your office.
I am writing this letter in order to request a declaratory statement as to whether or not your Office is in full support of Assistant Attorney General Strelzin’s decision not to take my family’s personal testimony as to Dr. Danboise’s state of mind; and, more importantly as reflected in his emails that he had NO intention to even consider my testimony because, he (Strelzin) is firm that the State of New Hampshire’s October 13, 2009 diagnosis would make my testimony irrelevant due to the fact that the State has Ruled that I am not legally competent (Please refer to my complaint to NH Mental Health Board for details); and, additionally to get your statement that the State’s actions that it’s action taken with respect to all of our prior complaints, which are incorporated herein, are consistent with its ‘moving policy’.
The facts that we have gathered to date, in our own investigation, indicate to us that Attorney Strelzin’s final decision if not thoroughly vetted may in fact put my family in harms way. The facts are clear. Dr. Danboise had threatened my life upon several occasions. His acts of rage and aggression were first experienced by me, in 1996, while in my place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. I caught him stealing checks. I confronted him, and he attacked me. The second attack on my life and property came on November 22, 2003. An arsonist attempted to burn down the cottage located at 309 Waukewan Road, Center Harbor, NH, where I was living at the time. There was a heavy metal component in the accelerant. While putting out the fire, I inhaled the heavy metal accelerant. I filed a complaint with your office within days. The complaint for an investigation was denied. I received a letter stating same. The denial to investigate should be in your files. The ingestion of the heavy metal was the proximate cause of my appendix bursting several months later. I almost died then.
Then in February, 2005 I was attacked and hit on the head and left for dead in a pool of blood in the hallway of the same residence. The emergency room doctor said it was a blow that caused blunt force trauma to my frontal lobe. The good news is that I have a hard head. I did not die. And, I was not rendered mentally incapacitated. Again, I filed a complaint, and again the proper authorities refused to investigate.
I have no direct proof that Dr. Danboise was the hands-on perpetrator in the above attacks, in New Hampshire. However, we have very credible evidence that he was the main perpetrator in the attack on the High Birches pump house in March, 1997, and in the later attacks upon the Water Supply and Distribution System, upon which my corporation Netmark International, Inc. had (which I now own) a super-lien that (the last time I checked) was still on file at the Grafton County Registry of Deeds. It has been my prior testimony that my family has many reasons to believe that Dr. Danboise, at that time, was associated with known organized criminals, specifically in the matter of the High Birches Springs and the Winter Hill Gang. The bottom line is that Dr. Danboise coveted the High Birches Springs. He was very clear, and very personally threatening to me: he would stop at nothing and believed he was protected. We believed him. And, still believe that his known associates are still being protected.
In the late 80’s Dr. Danboise underwent a series of psychological evaluations by an industrial psychologist. I would think at the very least Attorney Strelzin would want to know what the results of the testing were. But, perhaps not: Considering the newspaper reports that within hours after the investigation into the brutal stabbing death of Mrs. Danboise, Attorney Strelzin announced that he knew what the motive was. And, the NH Medical Examiner was also very quick off the mark to declare that Dr. Danboise committed suicide.
- Forgive me, but is that the same medical examiner that performed an autopsy on a Jane Doe and then falsified the autopsy report to be that of the body of my mother Agnes Sovik Allan? And, then as the record shows, there is no chain of title to support the report. To this day my family has no idea where my Mother’s remains were sent, if they were ever in the medical examiners office in the first place. And, further evidence shows that there is no legal chain of title of my Mother’s remains leaving the Lakes Region General Hospital. Considering my family’s experience, a second opinion may be prudent with respect to Dr. Danboise’s apparent suicide.
Considering Dr. Danboise’s mob connections, and given all the recent exposés from other Mafia Bosses, perhaps Dr. Danboise was becoming a loose end that they needed to tie up, or hang, in this case. Dr. Danboise experienced retribution for his failure to contain me back in 2002-3. Allegedly then he fell off a ladder: Word on the street was that it was not an accident, but a warning. And, now both he and his wife are dead. As I told Attorney Strelzin, there but for the Grace of God, and a ticket to leave the country, I have, so far, escaped the Grim Reaper. Therefore, it is in my family’s best interest to believe that Dr. Danboise committed suicide. That very personal threat would be over.
But, as you must understand: We have to be certain. No stone can be left unturned. We still are a target. I still own the very valuable water rights to the HB Water Supply and Distribution System that is located within your jurisdiction.
As you are aware, my family has been posting many of its legal documents on the website nhjustice.net. The reason for these necessary measures is that we have had many of our original documents stolen. Dr. Danboise personally stole many of our important documents to include my original US Birth Certificate. The date was November 12, 1996. That was the same time he stole the business assets of Oral Healthcare Management, Inc., Netmark, International, Business Assets Management, Inc. and Senter Cove Development, Inc. At that time, I filed a criminal complaint with the Suffolk County DA. The probable cause records of the May 1997 hearing, according to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue were expunged. And, the personal threat of death was invoked by Dr. Danboise speaking for his associates as well.
In September of 1996, someone set me up as a suspect in an Organized Crime Task Force investigation. I was subpoenaed as a suspect by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s Organized Crime Task Force, in a major Ponzi scheme. When the AUSA finally interviewed me, she determined that I was perhaps the only true victim. I requested that she expand the investigation into my situation and global complaints to include Dr. Danboise, James Iuele, whom I now believe to have been an alias for James Bulger, and Gene Phillips, who later was arrested in a Mafia related organized crime sweep. The AUSA request was refused by US DOJ and FBI HQ in Washington, DC, and also by the Boston Office of the FBI. The reasons for this denial, and for other acts of protection (read Peter Lance’s book "The Deal with the Devil") are now being exposed in the matter USA V Bulger. At the end of this week the prosecutor is expected to rest its case. The defense has claimed that Mr. Bulger had protection for decades. Do I sense an ongoing pattern?
Additional information as to the unique situation that my family has found itself stymied by is now being exposed daily with revelations of the COINTELPRO program that was reported to have been abandoned in the late 1970’s, but its legacy lives on, yet still.
Again, my family is one of the true victims of very bad public policy. And, as one of Dr. Danboise’s know Mafia associates warned me: (to paraphrase)"if your springs were only 350 gallons per minute, we would have let you go; but, you are sitting on an Atlantic Ocean of water … you have to be eliminated". This fact has not changed with the death of Dr. Danboise. There are many more soldiers that can fill his shoes, and perhaps more effectively.
All of the above brings us back to USC Title 42, Section 1983: The State of New Hampshire to date has been hiding under the defense that it has performed its duty to serve and protect…while under the ‘color of law’.
The Statute is clear: ". . . who under color of [state law] . . ."
- The traditional definition of acting under the color of state law requires that the defendant have exercised power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law," and such actions may result in liability even if the defendant abuses the position given to him by the state.
- In order to hold a local government liable under section 1983, the Supreme Court has interpreted this causation element to require that the harm be the result of action on the part of the government entity that implemented or executed a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers, or the result of the entity's custom. Further, the entity's policy or custom must have been the "moving force" behind the alleged deprivation. This "custom or policy" requirement is a dramatic departure from the rule of respondeat superior that prevails in many common law actions.
- An unconstitutional policy may also exist if an isolated action of a government employee is dictated by a "final policymaker," or if the authorized policymaker approves a subordinate's decision and the basis for it. However, a supervisor can only be liable in his individual capacity if he directly participates in causing the harm--relying upon respondeat superior is insufficient. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a plaintiff must meet a heightened pleading standard to state a claim against a municipality for an unconstitutional custom or policy.
Considering that my family has been filing complaints about the threats and actions that Dr. Danboise has taken against us over almost two decades, your Office should be able to refer to literally banker’s boxes of documents, yet Attorney Strelzin did not appear to have access to any of the past files. Was this his oversight, or have the files disappeared? The above bullet points talk about a ‘moving policy". We would respectfully request a declarative statement from New Hampshire that would explain clearly how it’s treatment of my family’s due process rights are consistent with its ‘moving policies’.
While in the State’s jurisdiction our properties have been sabotaged; death threats against my person have been made and acted upon; I have been illegally arrested 4 times; our chattel properties have been stolen, and most likely some can be found at Attorney Strelzin’s crime scene at the Danboise home; and, my civil rights under due process of law to defend myself was terminated with the filing of a bogus October 13, 2009 diagnosis of the State’s Forensic Examiner with the Laconia District Court. The foregoing references can be added to other violations that have already been filed with reference to my mother, Agnes Sovik Allan's, suspicious death and the disappearance of her remains. Please explain to us how all these ‘awful awful’ experiences are recognized within the State’s ‘moving policies’, and are consistent with USC Title 42 Section 1983?
The Statute clearly states that "Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, it merely provides a method for the vindication of rights elsewhere conferred in the United States Constitution and Laws. Therefore, a plaintiff may prevail only if he can demonstrate that he was deprived of rights secured by the United States Constitution or federal statutes."
(iv) ". . . [any person to] the deprivation of rights . . ." Against this backdrop, to state a claim for a deprivation of Due Process, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he possessed a constitutionally protected property interest; and (2) that he was deprived of that interest without due process of law. Due process property interests are created by "existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law--rules or understanding that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits." To have a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause, "a person must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it." Due process requires that "a deprivation of life, liberty, or property 'be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case,'" but the state does not have to provide the same remedies available under section 1983 in order to satisfy due process.
In construing the Due Process Clause, the United States Supreme Court has held that negligent acts by state actors do not effect a "deprivation" for the purposes of the Due Process Clause, and the random and unauthorized conduct of a government actor, even if intentional, does not implicate the Due Process Clause if the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy, such as, for example, a tort remedy in its own courts. However, where the state can feasibly provide a pre-deprivation hearing, it must do so regardless of the post-deprivation remedies available, and in the absence of a special relationship created or assumed by the state, a state's failure to protect an individual from violence or injury caused by private actors cannot state a violation of the Due Process Clause.
In addition to protection against deprivations of procedural due process, the Due Process Clause has two substantive components--the substantive due process simpliciter, and incorporated substantive due process. In order to state a claim for a violation of the substantive due process simpliciter, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant engaged in conduct that was "arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense." This form of due process has very limited application, but, in contrast to certain procedural due process claims, the existence of adequate post-deprivation remedies does not bar a substantive due process claim.
With respect to incorporated substantive due process, the plaintiff may state a claim by proving a violation of one of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has held that one of the substantive elements of the Due Process Clause protects those rights that are fundamental--rights that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and has, over time, held that virtually all of the Bill of Rights protect such fundamental rights and has likewise held that they apply to the states through the "liberty" interest of the Due Process Clause. However, the Court has held that when a specific provision within the Bill of Rights already provides protection, the more generalized notion of due process should not be used to define constitutional rights.
"In addition to providing a remedy for deprivations of constitutional rights, section 1983 also makes actionable violations of federal "Laws." A violation of a federal statute is cognizable only when the violation trammels a right secured by federal law. However, a statute is said to create a federal right only when "the provision in question is intended to benefit the putative plaintiff," unless it reflects merely a congressional preference for a certain kind of conduct rather than a binding obligation on the government unit, or unless the putative plaintiff's interest is too vague and amorphous such that it is beyond the competence of the judiciary to enforce."
- (v) " . . . shall be liable . . . in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . "
Neither I, nor anyone in my family are lawyers. And, since all of our properties have been stolen we cannot afford a lawyer. We have been consistently hopeful that somehow, someone in responsible authority would recognize the bind we have been put in. Clearly all the ‘under color of law’ violations have collectively ruined our lives and our children’s’ legacies. We have consistently said all we want is declaratory relief, and to have what is rightfully ours under both the State and Federal Constitutions restored to us. What is the purpose of having any rights, if there are no remedies available to exercise these rights? Clearly, New Hampshire cannot legally defend the actions that its agents have taken against us. And, to continue to cover up those acts will only end in more unnecessary homicides. Most likely Mrs. Danboise would not have been killed at the hand of Dr. Danboise, if Dr. Danboise had been incarcerated for the crimes that he committed against my family, and the State and Federal Banking Systems, and the IRS with his tax evasions. At the very least the public would have been put on notice that he had a very dark side. To be for-warned is to be for-armed.
In any event Mrs. Danboise is dead, and I am still alive, although my health has been badly compromised due to the mistreatment that I received in jail due to the malicious and illegal arrests, and due to the heavy metal poisoning that I inhaled in 2003. But, fortunately for me the blunt force trauma to the head blow, contrary to what the State of New Hampshire has diagnosed, has not incapacitated me mentally. I am in, and of, sound mind as I write this letter. My two sons Fritz E. Vorisek and Kurt W. Vorisek have reviewed the contents of this letter, and concur with all that is incorporated within.
Jean Allan Sovik fka Jean Vorisek Quinn.
Cc: Governor Maggie Hassan, and US DOJ OIG