State of New Hampshire v. Jean E. Allan
Docket No. 09-cr-1293(198841C)
Opinion Based on Fact, Circumstantial Evidence & The Obvious
This "Opening Statement" introduction and following postings in this matter have been Written by Jean E. Allan aka Jean E. Allan Sovik, (hereinafter known as DEFENDANT), beginning on this date (March 15, 2012) in re: State of New Hampshire v Jean E. Allan Docket No: 09-cr-1293-4 (199163c,199164c) & 09-cr-1346 (20016164c) and in re:Docket No: 09-CR-4147, in the Jurisdiction of Laconia District Court, 23 Academy Street, Laconia, New Hampshire 03246


NO WITNESS – NO CASE (Installment 5)



If you are a new Reader of this series "NO WITNESS – NO CASE", you may want to begin with reading the four prior installments before you read this one. If you are a serial Reader then you will note that this installment ("HER ATTORNEYS" PART 3- McLane Law Office; Devine Millimet Stahl & Branch; Merrill & Broderick; Shaheen Gordon; Orr & Reno; Upton Sanders & Smith( now Upton Hatfield) continues from PART 1 (Installment #3) and PART 2 (Installment #4) "HER ATTORNEYS".

The repeat Readers of this Series "NO WITNESS – NO CASE" will recall that PART 1,2, and now 3 tackle the State’s very bold, unqualified, and affirmative defense of its NH BAR when it concluded that (also found on page 13 of REPORT): "As just one example, she has worked with many attorneys. She reports that virtually all were either compromised or ultimately refused to work with her, to the point that she could not retain an attorney. The idea that there might be some thing about her that has caused difficulties with "her attorneys" does not seem to have crossed her mind".

And, although the State’s REPORT Testimony written statement, to wit: "Her descriptions at times almost sounded like a novel, and she has a self-importance in the "story" that is suggestive of a film documentary" -suggests that I am writing fiction. I am not.


Personal Note to Readers:

I have heard from some Readers that they are frustrated with the style of my writing. The punch lines should come at the very beginning. And, I accept that critique. However, I am not an English Lit major. I majored in Sociology, and everyone knows that Sociologists are known to be notoriously bad "fiction" writers. I am also not an attorney. I have had no formal legal training: only the "school of hard knocks" has brought this pro se to this position today.

By now the Readers also should recognize that the purpose of the series "NO WITNESS – NO CASE" is to impeach the State of New Hampshire, Department of Corrections, Office of Forensic Examiners, October 13, 2009, REPORT "Testimony" that it faxed to the Laconia District Court (LDC) minutes prior to the scheduled hearing of the of the State’s criminal trespass charges against the DEFENDANT. Based solely upon the REPORT "Testimony", the LDC dismissed all charges. The LDC found that DEFENDANT was "Not Competent" to stand trial. A competency hearing was scheduled. On March 5, 2009 the LDC affirmed that DEFENDANT was not competent. On December 21, 2009, a Restoration to Competency hearing was scheduled. The LDC found the DEFENDANT not competent. The DEFENDANT was denied the opportunity to cross examine the REPORT "Testimony".

This Series was created for the sole purpose to allow the DEFENDANT her opportunity to cross examine the October 13, 2009 REPORT that the Department of Corrections, State of New Hampshire, Office of the Forensic Examiner, faxed to the Laconia District Court as its written "Testimony" in the matter cited above.

My approach heretofore has been to attempt to lay out the foundation and context within which the State’s REPORT Testimony can be objectively viewed. The reasons for the confusing "puzzle" of facts is that "her former attorneys" are the best and brightest wordsmiths, and have used their ‘pens’ as weapons of destruction as skillfully as any ‘swash buckling swordsman’. In fact more so, if one believes that the pen is mightier than the sword. The ‘non competent’ box that the State has put the DEFENDANT in is a living hell as opposed to a coffin, but it is a "death trap" all the same.

By now it should be clear to all Readers that somehow, someway, the 1989 BankEast naked mortgage was ‘resurrected’ from the ash heap of the 1991 BankEast failure, and survived, albeit through fraud and deception, until it was finally and successfully used as a financial weapon to foreclose on the Center Harbor, NH property (on September 27, 2007) that was owned by the Jean Vorisek Family Trust. And, effectively due to its use in the September 2007 foreclosure action, it was the cited as the justification by Waukewan Holdings LLC, in its AFFIDAVIT of Ownership, as the basis to arrest DEFENDANT, two years later.

For victims to be able to describe how the crimes were committed, we all now know that in New Hampshire one has to become "Dick Tracy" themselves, because calling NH Attorney General "Dick Tracy" will get you no where. Therefore, DEFENDANT will continue to attempt to seek to explain what she has discovered within the ‘legal puzzle palace’ of the State called New Hampshire.


With that said: as a refresher…the below paragraph is where PART 2 of "HER ATTORNEY" ended

An ‘enquiring mind’ may well say, all of the above arguments pursuant to Rule 3.3 are well and good, but… Why should they matter at all?

    • If the alleged October 12, 1989 Settlement that created the alleged "BankEast naked mortgages" securing TRUST properties (albeit illegal) were exchanged for the 1991 Superseding Creditor Agreement that BankEast signed discharging ALL its mortgage rights in February, 1991, to include its claims in BankEast v Business Assets, Senter et al, and that AGREEMENT was incorporated into the First Equity Insurance purchase agreement with BAM, for the Sale of Senter Stock, then the ‘BankEast naked mortgages’ should have been discharged as a matter of law? Ah! And, "therein lies the rub"…..

    Ok, so what is the punch line here?

    Attorneys, especially of the caliber of "her attorneys", do not waste potential billable hours on ruined a real estate development project. So why are the best and the brightest New Hampshire Law Offices all referring the DEFENDANT, from one to the other? Control may be the answer, but control of what? What if it were control of one of the largest spring water sources in New Hampshire? And, what if, "Her Attorneys" and their other preferred clients were well aware of the fact that the failed High Birches real estate development project was, in fact, doomed to failure from day one? Think about it! "Her DEVINE Attorneys" also represented the CLD engineers who held the secret / missing ground water study that exposed the fraud of the real estate development.

    And, so now to continue with: "HER ATTORNEYS" PART 3- McLane Law Office; Devine Millimet Stahl & Branch; Merrill & Broderick; Shaheen Gordon; Orr & Reno; Upton Sanders & Smith( now Upton Hatfield)

    Remember that the State has effectively sworn an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…So, how factually accurate was the State’s Report Testimony to LDC compared to what the DEFENDANT told the OIGs of US Securities & Exchange Commission and US DOJ in, January 9, 2009, 27 page ‘CASE STUDY’ observations. The State’s apparent advantage here was that based upon its REPORT ‘narrative’ alone, the LDC twice Ordered DEFENDANT NOT COMPETENT: A "heavy burden" for the State to bear, especially since the State is usually arguing strenuously that a defendant is ‘competent’ and, therefore eligible to be tried.

    A couple of questions Readers may consider at the end of this series "NO WITNESS – NO CASE" are: Did the State carry its burden with clean hands? And if not, then a follow up question may be: Whether the State’s unqualified defense of its NH Bar members was justified, and/or was the State’s REPORT "Testimony" given at the expense of New Hampshire’s Rule of Law and its Constitution? If the answer is in the affirmative, then the next question is WHY?

    For example, DEFENDANT: beginning on page 7 of REPORT’s Testimony in Sources of Information 6) – 27 page ‘CASE STUDY’ to OIGs stated:

      • "In 1992, all our lawyers had abandoned my companies, and me. The Shaheen Gordon Law Office quit without informing me that it had sold me out."(Refer to Rule 1.7, 3.3 re: Shaheen – PART 2) But, prior to Shaheen & Gordon quitting as DEFENDANT’s litigation attorneys, and, apparently with the knowledge and consent of "her DEVINE attorneys", the law firm of Orr & Reno filed an Appearance in BAM, Senter et al v CLD.


      • The State REPORT incorporated DEFENDANT’s statement to OIGs, which is also in the public records that sometime in 1992, she learned of the Orr & Reno conflict (recall Rule 1.7). DEFENDANT reported to OIGs, to wit: "In a hearing that I requested; the judge Ordered Orr & Reno off the case."


      • And continued: "Orr & Reno, the law firm of one of the defendants attempted to convince the New Hampshire Superior Court that it did not have a conflict of interest in performing plaintiff litigation services for me, while defending one of the defendants." (In re: BankEast v FATICO that was non suited in 1993). Orr & Reno was outside counsel for FATICO, the title insurer of the 1988 BankEast loan to BAM, Senter et al to the 120 acre property in North Woodstock, NH, and the supporting real estate development permits. The BankEast lawsuit against FATICO began in 1989. FATICO was the entity that loaned Senter the $400,000 to purchase the 58 acre out parcel. (Refer back to Installment #4 PART 2)


      • Although the hearing was in camera between the judge and "her Orr & Reno attorneys", it was clear that the Judge found Orr & Reno to be in violation of Rule 1.7, at the very least.

      By this time, in the DEFENDANT’s ‘case study’ narrative, the State was fully aware of the Court’s Order re: DEFENDANT v Orr and Reno, which found that she needed to quickly find replacement attorneys (within 30 days), or the court would dismiss DEFENDANT’s companies lawsuit against the CLD engineers.

      DEFENDANT was under great pressure to comply with the Court’s Order:

        • "With little time to find new counsel, another firm Upton Sanders & Smith was retained. Unbeknownst to me, at that time, the new firm was also conflicted, but did not disclose its conflicts." (Another Rule 1.7 issue to be discussed more fully later. The referring attorney in this instant was Attorney Frank Jones, who himself had a conflict as DEFENDANT later learned.)


        • "Cabral the first mortgagee secured by the North Woodstock property (failed High Birches real estate development project) was poised to foreclose. No law firm would defend me in that case, so I acted pro se to enjoin the foreclosure." (Richard A. Cabral)


        • "My argument was that I had just discovered what all the other parties who had prior access to an earlier ground water study already knew: The engineering plans for the High Birches real estate development were frauds due to the fact that the entire property was holding some of the largest springs in New England. The property was undevelopable on its face! And, the highest and best use valuation for the property was as a source for the bottled water industry."

        On page 8 of her 27 page ‘CASE STUDY’ observations, DEFENDANT continued to inform the OIGs that:

        • "Subsequent studies done by Senter in order to get permitted as a bottled water source have confirmed that the springs have a reservoir capacity of over 10 million gallons per day. The High Birches Springs were permitted by the State of New Hampshire to commercially extract up to 1 million gallons per day."


        • "Shortly after the wholesale spring water permit was granted in NH, other permits to sell High Birches Mountain Spring Water were granted by the State of Massachusetts. A Tetra Pak packaging facility then began to produce the branded High Birches beverages. It was located near New Bedford, Massachusetts where the High Birches warehouse was also located."


        • "The Corporate headquarters for Netmark International, Inc., the producer and distributor of the branded retail beverage products, was located at 10 Post Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts."


        Ok, so now we know that the State (in October 13, 2009) was fully aware of the hidden "High Birches Springs" since the State permitted them in 1994. All the permits for the "up and running" wholesale of High Birches Spring Water should be on file with the State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. The State had in its records the EASEMENT DEED filed by Netmark International with the Grafton County Registry of Deeds. All the State needed to do was to pick up the telephone and request a copy of the High Birches Springs Water permits. But, alas, it appears that the State’s Prosecutor Testified on page 4 "I have little or no independent confirmation of the events she cites and/or counter versions of the same or similar events".

        So the State’s REPORT Testimony "spin" on the DEFENDANT’s statement above were: (see page 6 of its REPORT)

          • "It is unclear if the business actually operated or was planned to operate by Ms. Allan, amid all of the financing and ownership issues, but she maintains that she and/or her companies kept water rights to the property even when the land property was in dispute". The State’s above claim to the LDC was intentionally false and deceptive, and in violation of Rule 3.3 Candor to Tribunal. The State had, at the time it committed this "Testimony" in October 13, 2009 public record documents to prove that it was knowingly in violation of Rule 3.3 Candor to the Tribunal.

          State: (continuing on page 6 of its REPORT)

            • "She references Enron in one email to Attorney Wolpin, indicating that Enron could not have controlled the market on water as a commodity "unless they controlled me", adding that "I was a monopoly maker or breaker and still am if the water rights remain with me." The State in the above sentenced has introduced into evidence a Statement that was allegedly made by the DEFENDANT to her attorney in confidence, a violation of ABA Model Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information, and should not have been admissible as evidence; and, the State knew it.


            • Since, the DEFENDANT, nor the LDC, actually saw the alleged email that the State referred to in the sentence above there is no way to test the validity of the State’s claim. And, it appears by its two ‘non competent’ Orders that the LDC took the State’s word without any questions asked, or cross examination allowed.


            • And, as a further indication of DEFENDANT’s "grandiose delusions" the State (without any independent investigation, and without context) dismissively writes to the LDC: "She cited High Birches Mountain Spring Water’s trademark as "starts pure, stays pure," and her spread sheet suggests net profits that could have exceeded $54,000,000 between 1989 and 2007. She references hundreds of millions of dollars as part of the family legacy related to this venture and related rights therein."


            Please note that in an upcoming installment DEFENDANT will further explore the State’s probable motive to diminish the DEFENDANT’s damages. The State (instead of "policing it own environmental problems" with an investigation of the sabotage and contamination of the DEFENDANT’s High Birches Springs water business) agreed to do no investigation, and, in exchange, took $100,000 from one of "her former McLane attorney’s" other "elite crony clients", Martha HW Crowninshield. (…more about Crowninshield’s role in the BankEast naked mortgages later.)

            But for now, it is important for Readers to know that in 1998, it has been publicly reported that the State did collect the $100,000 from Crowninshield. The funds were allegedly for the State’s work associated with its clean-up efforts following the September 11, 1997 contamination of the High Birches Springs main production well, along with other adjacent test wells.

            The September 11, 1997 sabotage and the subsequent decommissioning of the High Birches Mountain Springs primary water supply was the proximate cause of the ruination of DEFENDANT’s nascent bottled water business. This was the DEFENDANT’s second business venture to be destroyed, aided and abetted by "her former attorneys".

            Perhaps any of the FRM PONZI SCHEME READERS would not find it difficult to believe that the LDC was predisposed to believe the State’s "paranoid deluisional" diagnosis of DEFENDANT: NO WITNESS – NO CASE = NO DAMAGES. (The events leading up to the sabotage of, the High Birches Springs will be fully explored in the upcoming installments.)

            So, to recap, the High Birches Springs discovery puts into perspective probable motives for the herein described actions of "her former attorneys" that must have been difficult for, all but the cynical, to imagine. Just envision: In the "right hands" the High Birches Spring source was Liquid Gold: lots and lots of GOLD, and tons of billable hours for "her formers attorneys".

            Circumstances surrounding the ‘Resurrection’ of the BankEast naked mortgages and the role of "her attorneys"

            By October 13, 2009, the State, and the public knew that BankEast had failed in October, 1991:

              • It is public record that the FDIC appointed BONHAM as its agent receiver for the failed bank, and not The Resolution Trust.


              • It is public record that Attorney Daniel Sklar was one of the local New Hampshire attorneys that was retained to represent BONHAM as BankEast’s receiver.


              • It is public record that Attorney Daniel Sklar represented BankEast in its law suit against BAM, Senter et al that has been laid out in Installment #4 PART 2 where DEFENDANT has recounted several apparent RULE 3.3 violations, which include actions taken by Attorney Sklar.)


              • It is an undisputed fact that Attorney Sklar was well informed with respect surrounding the BankEast credit line that was opened in favor of the borrowers, BAM and Senter et al. Attorney Sklar has already confirmed these facts in deposition testimony to the FDIC in re: Petition to Quiet Title brought by BAM, Senter et al in Belknap Superior Court docket 97-E-202.


              • It was Attorney Sklar, who when asked by FDIC, to produced the original of the February, 1991 Mortgage Discharged where the bank exchanged it rights to secured mortgages, for other collateral produced the original Mortgage Discharge from his file. The Mortgage Discharge was signed by BankEast Agent Deborah Blondin.


              • The BankEast Mortgage Discharge (attached to the 1991 Creditor’s Agreement) that was created at the request of First Equity Insurance (one of "her DEVINE attorneys" other clients) as part of the 1991 Superseding Agreement, in which the bank agreed to exchange its mortgage collateral for other collateral: to include, but not limited to 1) the Ecotech stock (Refer to Alan Teale/First Equity Ins/Ecotech Fraud Installment 2), and 2) interests in ongoing law suits. One of those law suits was BAM, Senter v CLD Engineers.


              Remember when DEFENDANT stated above that "With little time to find new counsel, another firm Upton Sanders & Smith was retained. Unbeknownst to me, at that time, the new firm was also conflicted, but did not disclose its conflicts." (Another Rule 1.7 issue). Here’s where that piece fits:

              In the State’s REPORT Testimony that it allegedly incorporated into the fax that it wired to LDC (which, the LDC most likely never read, since there is no evidence that a copy of the document was ever submitted) The DEFENDANT disclosed to OIGs (on page 8 in bold quotes incorporated into Sources of Information 6) that:

              • "On May 2, 1994, a concomitant settlement hearing took place in Boston, MA. By then Upton & Sanders had quit leaving the plaintiffs [me] in extremis." BAM, Senter et al was scheduled to be tried on April 18, 1994, latterly on the steps of the courthouse Upton refused to try the case and negotiated a settlement that it forced upon DEFENDANT.


              • DEFENDANT filed a grievance with the New Hampshire Professional Conduct Committee that was "Appealed" all the way to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Based upon Upton Testimony to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, in 1996, that all the mortgages (to include the BankEast naked mortgages) had been discharged; and, therefore the firm argued that it had earned a commission of $250,000 for settling with CLD insurer ICIC. The NHSC found in 1996 that Upton had earned its contingency fee.


              • However, in 2006, then "her former attorney "Broderick, who was by then the Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court" became the manager of the case and the NHSC found that the BankEast naked mortgage securing Center Harbor property had not been discharged. A finding in total contradiction to the 1996 case.


              • DEFENDANT lost both times: She was Ordered to paid $250,000 to Upton in 1996; and then found that in 2006 she still owed $850,000 to SN/Arkley/Ingomar et al. The equity value of the Center Harbor property at that time was $335,000. The high foreclosure bid was $245,000 leaving approximately $600,000 still owed by the DEFENANT to SN/Arkley/Ingomar LP.)


              • "The BankEast creditor, if any, did not appear to claim its portion of the settlement as per its February, 1991 Creditor’s Agreement."


              • "At that time BankEast had failed, and the FDIC had already made claims to be the receiver of the company’s assets."


              • "At that time, the FDIC’s representative, Attorney Daniel Sklar -the very same attorney who was a party to the fraud upon me and the No. Hillsborough Superior Court along with Devine Millimet and Shaheen Gordon – was Noticed."


              • "He failed to appear." (It is public information that he personally was notified of the closing)


              • "And to further compound matters the insurance company for the engineers who had committed the fraud on the No. Woodstock property was owned by Warren Buffet. He allowed Cabral’s successor in interest Martha HW Crowinshield to control the settlement. Neither my companies nor I had competent representation on May 2, 1994."


              • "As a consequence of the May 2 event, Martha HW Crownishield filed legal documents in an attempt to cancel the water permits, among other things. Senter was given 6 months to attempt to refinance Crowninshield’s claim upon the Cabral first mortgage on the No. Woodstock property. Without the cooperation of the FDIC it was impossible to comply with Crowninshield’s demand." (At the May 2, CLD closing it was alleged that Martha HW Crownshield took an assignment of the Cabral first mortgage on only the land in North Woodstock. It was alleged that Crowninshield paid Cabral his consideration out of the CLD proceeds that ICIC has dispersed directly to Crowninshield. DEFENDANT’s companies never saw one penny of the alleged CLD settlement funds. The DEFENDANT never received an accounting of the CLD Settlement – no cancelled checks – nothing.)


              Clearly, the State had ample opportunity to check the voluminous court records in order to independently verify the DEFENDANT’s statements herein. There is no evidence that the State did any independent research into the alleged May 2, 1994 CLD settlement. The State’s interpretation of DEFENDANT’s descriptive statements to OIGs with respect to the FDIC’s failure to make a claim for its portion of the CLD law suit pursuant to its 1991 Creditor Agreement was condensed into this one very convoluted, deceptive, and lacking in "Candor to the Tribunal" sentence:
                • "BankEast, which according to Ms Allan improperly had become the mortgagee of the land property in the October 1989 Judgment, failed, and assets were claimed by the FDIC. She indicates that the FDIC’s representative was Daniel Sklar, "the very same attorney who was a party to the fraud upon me, and the Northern Hillsborough Superior Court, in a conspiracy with Devine Millimet and Shaheen Gordon, "who failed to appear at a settlement hearing on May 2, 1994".

                NOTE: Considering all the information contained in PARTS 1 & 2 heretofore, with respect to Officers of the Court violating several of the Court’s own Rules, to include Rule 1.6, 1.7 and 3.3, the above factual conclusion fails the "I smell a rat" test itself. But, the LDC’s attitude toward the State’s Prosecutor Libby was effectively "here no evil, see no evil, and smell no evil". (Please note and recall: Judges are not the Court.)

                So who ‘resurrected’ the BankEast naked mortgage with respect to the Center Harbor property? You must have guessed by now: It was FDIC Agent Daniel Sklar!

                In the upcoming INSTALLMENT #6 NO WITNESS NO CASE, Defendant will lay out the facts as to how he did it! ...

                [This Page Last Updated on April 28, 2012]