NO WITNESS = NO CASE
[INSTALLMENT 12]
SUMMATION
"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime"
Honore de Balzac was a French novelist and playwright whose works were widely read at the turn of the 19th Century. However, the intent of the above quote is made very current in the following Summation of this Series of Installments titled NO WITNESS = NO CASE.
--------------------------------
NOTE: If you are a new Reader of this series "NO WITNESS = NO CASE", you may want to begin with reading the eleven prior installments before you read this SUMMATION.
The main objective of this Series of Installments has been to lay out DEFENDANT’s rebuttal argument, and "Affirmative Defenses" to the State’s REPORT "Testimony" that was faxed to the Laconia District Court [LDC] in re: 09-cr-1293-4 minutes prior to the hearing on the merits of the May 15-16, 2009 arrests in re: 1293-94 (in both cases the DEFENDANT is charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass). In re: 1293-4 the misdemeanor was an "A" classification, which entitled her to a Public Defender attorney. In re: 09-CR-4147 the later charges were classified as "B" and therefore the DEFENDANT had to defend herself, pro se.
The REPORT "Testimony" was also submitted to the court in re: 09-CR-4147, whose charges and the subsequent arrests of the DEFENDANT occurred after the Belknap County Superior Court issued an ORDER that GRANTED DEFENDANT’s MOTION for a Temporary Restraining Order against Waukewan Holdings, LLC.
--------------------------------
In this Summation argument, DEFENDANT will attempt to share with the Readers the arguments propounded by her, and what she intended to be the material issues in those arguments. And, although the Installments may appear disjointed to the casual Readers, they are really all closely tied together. Essentially, DEFENDANT’s main argument is that her company (Netmark International Inc. heretofore known as Netmark) nascent branded (High Birches Mountain Spring Water – Starts Pure, Stays Pure – The Sustainable Source) environmentally friendly spring water business was the target of a vicious takeover attack by certain Boston Private Equity Pirates, and their co-conspirators to include agents and agencies of government. The eleven installments lay out the facts as to how the takeover was successfully done. It is a cautionary tale that describes what Private Equity Pirates do best. They use their money and influence to get what they want, by any means available to include force if necessary.
As with most things one finds out about life in general, the person that is being ‘targeted’ is at a disadvantage to those actors who have made the target their ‘bull’s eye’. The actors know their intent. The ‘target’ of that intent can only develop a working theory, using their own personal experiences, and information gleaned from other public records, as their best explanation of the actors’ intent.
Usually the ‘target’ learns about the actors’ intentions too late to effectively change the outcome. As it is very clear in this Series of Installments, those ‘ah ha’ moments can take years to develop. And, in most cases, by then the statutes of limitations of the crimes committed against the ‘target’ will have tolled. The criminal actors cannot be charged, indicted, convicted or sentenced. Those are the ‘great crimes’. The following summations merely recounts how it was done.
In DEFENDANT’s case the actors, if not stopped now, will have succeeded in stealing DEFENDANT’s family’s ‘great fortune’, which included, among other things, the permitted High Birches Springs, located on Route #3 No. Woodstock, New Hampshire, which was covered by a Water Supply & Water Distribution Easement Deed, filed at the Grafton County Registry of Deeds on April 11, 1997 (Bk 2245 and Pg 0980) by Netmark International Inc., a company in which DEFENDANT was the sole stockholder. The value of the theft is almost incalculable considering that the spring water source has an estimated rechargeable reservoir of water somewhere around ten million gallons per day. Clearly, a category of crime which even Balzac would have recognized, and appreciated.
So, now let’s consider to the main issue of the eleven installments: The issue of the State’s REPORT testimony that it faxed to the Laconia District Court just minutes prior to the hearing of the above cited criminal trespass case. If the Readers are to believe the REPORT, then they will have to conclude that the two Laconia District Court judges’ Orders were correct. The DEFENDANT is ‘not competent’ and cannot be legally restored to competency. To quote the REPORT:
-
"It is my clinical opinion that Ms. Allan is suffering from a Delusional Disorder, Mixed Type, with paranoid, grandiose, and somatic features. A Delusional Disorder is different than other psychotic disorders in that an individual’s functioning may be relatively normal in many respects with the exception of the delusional system that may be relatively circumscribed."
- "Delusional ideas or perceptions of Delusional Disorder are non-bizarre and involve situations that could occur in real life, such as being conspired against, followed, deceived, poisoned, or being the holder of special talent of discovery."
- "The delusional experience often involves the misinterpretation of events or perceptions in situations where the misinterpretation is either untrue or highly exaggerated."
- "There is a paranoid core to her "story" characterized by her being victimized and ruined systematically by others who have conspired against her or at least colluded with the conspiracy.
- "She shows an unrealistic degree of grandiosity and somatic features are present via perceived physical attacks on her that have led to bodily contamination and compromise."
- Although any single event might have some degree of basis in reality and/or merit from her point of view, it is the manner in which all of the events are ultimately woven together as inter-connected unshakeable beliefs, no matter how strained the relation, which yields a compelling diagnostic impression of Delusional Disorder."
- "The volume and array of details, and sometimes significant degrees of separation between details, are what prove untenable, and can only be held together within a self-contained and self-justifying delusional understanding.
- Ms. Allan appears to possess no insight into her illness, or even the possibility of having an illness, which is typical, and each new experience or insult therefore becomes woven into the pre-existing delusional story."
- " The overarching thread that she maintains throughout her story, as described by her both during the current interview as well as the documents she provided, is held together and supported by an intricate web of complex links including (but not limited to) mobsters, financial schemers, compromised lawyers and judges, compromised agencies at high levels of NH and US government, incompetent and compromised engineers, fraudulent or deceptive loan agreements, sabotage, physical attacks, suspicious incidents, and stolen identity."
- "It is not feasible and beyond the scope of this evaluation to attempt an account that that will exhaustively cover every detail as reported by Ms. Allan."
- "Also, it is important to note that almost all of the data are reported from her perspective, and I have little or no independent confirmation of the events she cites and/or counter versions of the same or similar range of events."
The REPORT’s diagnosis continues for another half page, but the above bulleted points are the essence of the State’s successful arguments to the Laconia District Court .
Considering that the purpose of this Series of Installments is to impeach the State’s October 13, 2009 REPORT, and considering the State’s above testimony regarding its diagnosis of DEFENDANT’s competency, lets take some time to examine certain of the State’s REPORT "Testimony" opinions that persuaded two Judges of the Laconia District Court to find in its favor:
1. On page 4 of its REPORT, the State begins its narrative with the Blondheim Ponzi scheme, and the fact that DEFENDANT claimed to be the anonymous ‘whistle blower’ who was later publicly identified by the authorities. What we already know about Blondheim we have read in the public documents that have been hyperlinked in Installment 10. Essentially, Blondheim was a tax dodging/kickback/money laundering ponzi scheme with (as some reporting has shown) ties to organized crime. Its investors were those persons of wealth who were looking for financial investments in order to avoid paying taxes to the United States IRS. When the Blondheim Ponzi scheme was ‘busted’ the current investors suffered real financial losses. Some of the known tax scheme investors, and investors who were about to invest in the fraudulent tax shelter scheme, have already been named in the State’s REPORT, and in this Series of Installments. (How those individuals all link together will be discussed shortly).
2. The REPORT, however, insists in its allegations that the linkages DEFENDANT made among the individual tax dodging/kickback/money laundering actors and other co-conspirators, to include governmental agents was ‘strained’. Therefore, the Report concluded that the DEFENDANT is Delusional. For the REPORT to be accurate, therefore, a reasonable person must too find that the following linkages are ‘strained’. (The Readers will have the opportunity to make their own determination shortly. More fulsome descriptions of certain of the ‘linked’ individuals can be found in the REPORT’s Sources of Information 6: January 2009 Case Study).
3, The State’s REPORT appears to single out the following actors with particularity. Those actors include: Dr. Reginald P. Danboise; Milo Pike, Judge Edward Fitzgerald; Richard A. Cabral and his alter ego Oakes Financial; FDIC; Martha HW Crowninshield; NH Bar licensed attorneys Devine Millimet Stahl & Branch, and Shaheen & Gordon, among others; Warren Buffett; Tetra Pak; John Iuele aka Whitey Bulger; EF Hutton (sic Drexel Burnham); First Equity Insurance (owned by Mr. Gene Phillips); Alan Teale; and Robin Arkley et al; and Waukewan Holdings, LLC
Let us consider the above individuals in light of what has been laid out in great detail in this Series of Eleven Installments. The Readers can make their own determination as to whether DEFENDANT’s conclusion that they were all somehow linked in and if an association is ‘strained’, or not.
The below bulleted points are merely for the purpose of summation. The Readers may want to re-read the prior eleven installments for specific details of interest to them.
- In October 1985, DEFENDANT owned a real estate brokerage company, Business Assets Management Inc. (BAM) located on High Street, Portsmouth, NH. A lawyer that also represented many other real estate interests of Richard A. Cabral (unbeknownst to the DEFENDANT, at that time) wanted to list a certain property located in North Woodstock New Hampshire with (BAM). At the time of the listing the lawyer also gave the DEFENDANT several names of developers that he thought may be interested in purchasing the property.
- Dr. Reginald P. Danboise’s (dentist cum real estate developer) name was included on the lawyer’s list of names. DEFENDANT sent out an advertisement of the new listing to several of known real estate developers. Dr. Reginald P Danboise’s responded to the ad, in October, 1985. (The Blondheim Ponzi scheme was being prosecuted at this time.) Dr. Danboise offered to place an option on the property in North Woodstock, NH; which, as it turned out, is the property upon which the DEFENDANT later discovered the hidden High Birches Springs, in September 1993. The current owner of the North Woodstock, NH property was in default of his loan with Household Finance, now HSBC. The property was due to be foreclosed upon, if it could not be sold.
- Dr. Danboise retained the services of the surveying/engineering firm Costello Lomazeny & DiNapoli (CLD), who were at that time (unbeknownst to (BAM)) corporate clients of Devine Millimet Stahl and Branch (DMSB).
- Mr. Warren Buffett, according to the Nebraska Insurance Commissioner was the sole stockholder of the insurance company that covered malpractice claims against (CLD). Fraud was an exclusion.
- It was Mr. Warren Buffett’s insurance company that gave Martha HW Crowninshield, a dental patient of Dr. Danboise, and a legally non-related party to the SENTER et al v (CLD) lawsuit settlement, permission to control the disbursement of funds on May 2, 1994, in which DEFENDANT’s company was allegedly to receive $820,000 from Mr. Buffett’s insurance company.
- Mr. Buffett and Ms. Crowninshield, according to Ms. Crowninshield, had a preexisting relationship in Salomon Brothers, Mr. Cabral, among other associations. They were, as she put it, "friends". Some would say ‘cronies’.
- Also, of note is the fact that Mr. Buffett was at that time a large shareholder of Coca Cola. The Minute Maid brand was a subsidiary of Coca Cola. The Minute Maid brand, according to a representative of Tetra Pak was not pleased that Tetra Pak was sponsoring the packaging of the High Birches Mountain Spring Water brand. The year was 1996, which was prior to Coca Cola opening up a branded product in the still water beverage category. The Tetra Pak representative told the DEFENDANT that Mr. Buffett’s concerns were being taken very seriously. When Netmark’s production well was sabotaged, Tetra Pak made an immediate demand call upon Netmark.
-
Richard A. Cabral, was (during the Blondheim era) a silent partner of Dr. Danboise; and, also a big loser in the Blondheim Ponzi scheme; and, also a client, at that time of Devine Millimet, Stahl & Branch (DMSB) law office.
-
It was Mr. Cabral’s hidden alter ego, Oakes Financials that offered to refinance the No. Woodstock property after DEFENDANT’s co. (BAM) purchased, in 1987, Dr. Danboise’s company Senter, which now owned the property to include the partially permitted real estate development, in No. Woodstock, NH known then as High Birches Resort. This was after Dr. Danboise reneged on the purchase and sale agreement section, which required that he and his wife remain on the existing mortgage.
- Mr. Cabral was also the individual who allegedly assigned his 1987 mortgage rights to the land in No. Woodstock, NH to Martha HW Crowninshield on May 2, 1994. (The REPORT’s January 2009 Case Study (Exhibit 6), and the Installments #5 and #8 explain that transaction in more detail). The public records also show that at the time of the Cabral to Crowninshield assignment the FDIC had placed a blanket lien over all Mr. Cabral assets. It appears that FDIC had alleged in its court filings that Mr. Cabral was essentially a bank robber. One of the banks at issue was the failed Bank of New England. RECOLL was the appointed Receiver. (If the public records and former NH Bank Commissioner Roland Roberge can be believed, then, by law, Mr. Cabral was not legally free to assign anything to Ms. Crowninshield on May 2, 1994 without the cooperation of the FDIC.
- It is a matter of public record that Fleet Bank stepped in and offered to purchase some of the assets on the books of BNE,as well as its sister banks. FDIC gov Case Study article that has been hyperlinked to Salomon Brothers and RECOLL names states, in part: "Fleet’s bid had originally requested assistance from the FDIC, but it was able to raise $683 million of new capital with the assistance of Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR), Merrill Lynch, and Salomon Brothers…Chairman Sideman said, ‘We are delighted to see this new money coming into the banking system’." How delusional must one be to imagine that Ms. Crowninshield now had access to the highest levels of the FDIC (Fleet Bank)? And, used her influence to cut the ‘sweetheart’ deal that she did, on May 2, 1994?
- Thanks to the recently posted Freedom of Information Act documents posted by rollingstone.com we now have been made aware that the Boston agents of the failed FDIC insured banks were in the deal making business with Bain & Co, which has also been depicted by Rolling Stone as a "Private Equity Pirate". It is most probable that Bain’s crony Ms. Crowninshield was also offered a taxpayer subsidized ‘sweetheart’ deal by the FDIC on May 2, 1994 that included the assignment of the Cabral mortgage on the land in No. Woodstock, NH.
- Here’s what we know for a fact. Ms. Crowninshield did not pay face value for the Cabral mortgage. The amount of the discount was at least 50% according to a Fleet bank officer who was privy to the deal.
- Installments #5 and #8 lay out what the DEFENDANT was able to discover about FDIC Attorney Sklar acts on May 2, 1994 and beyond. It is probable that the two FDIC transactions were co-coordinated clearly for the benefit of Ms. Crowninshield, and at the expense of the American taxpayer and the DEFENDANT.
- If there was a coordinated deal, it would even explain the statement from the Upton Law Office lawyers that all the mortgages had been discharged, and therefore they were entitled to their commission. It would not explain Attorney Sklar’s subsequent claim on behalf of the FDIC against the failed BankEast alleged claims against the DEFENDANT’s companies. Or, the ultimate foreclosures of DEFENDANT’s properties.
- The entire FDIC related issues (to include the dipsy doodle transfer of the BankEast claim between BONHAM and the RTC along with the $11.57 sale to the predecessor of Robin Arkley II’s SN related companies) should be investigated by an agency of competent jurisdiction. The need for an investigation is ‘over ripe’.
- If, Ms. Crowninshield did cut a deal with agents of the FDIC (Fleet Bank), then that deal should have been disclosed to DEFENDANT on May 2, 1994. If there was no deal cut and Cabral independently made the transfer while the FDIC (Fleet Bank) had a super lien on all of his assets, he could not legally assign anything to Crowninshield: Leaving Crowninshield, in turn, nothing to assign to her company Bridgeton. Consequently Bridgeton Co. could not have legally foreclosed upon the DEFENDANT’s company’s (SENTER) property in No Woodstock, NH on August 25, 1999. In either scenario a bank fraud had been committed on May 2, 1994.
- (Note) There has been credible supporting evidence introduced into this Series of Installments, and that can be substantiated in other public sources to include the NH DES published Remediation File which indicates that Bridgeton Co., and its attorney’s McLane Law Office, along with NH Superior Court Judge Edward Fitzgerald knowingly committed a fraud upon the Grafton County Superior Court when they argued the "water rights" had never been separated from the land. There is also supporting documentation in the State’s Remediation File that would indicate that the fraud could not have succeeded without the assistance of certain agents of New Hampshire government to include agents of the Office of Attorney General, among perhaps other actors yet to be discovered.
- As it has been described in Installments #3, #4 and #5 sub-tiled "her attorneys", shortly after McLane Law Office refused to represent DEFENDANT’s companies in spring of 1988, Dr. Danboise referred DEFENDANT to one of his High School friends, Susan Duprey, who was an associate at Devine Millimet Stahl & Branch (DMSB). Attorney Karen McGinley later took on DEFENDANT’s account after Attorney Duprey took a leave of absence.
- Now let’s focus our attention back to August 1988, when DEFENDANT discovered that DMSB’s other client CLD had not done a correct survey of the subject property in North Woodstock, NH. This discovery was reported to DEFENDANT’s mortgagees because it caused a technical default of the mortgages, which by that time included the BankEast mortgage (which has been a central issue of this Series of Installments). Recall that BankEast was not merely another corporate client of DMSB, but DMSB represented both parties at the closing, in direct violation of the Professional Rules of Conduct (Rule 1.7).
- When Senter was pressured to correct the survey error and to locate additional financing, it was DMSB who referred DEFENDANT to Mr. John Iuele of Hamilton Funding, located in Hampton New Hampshire. (DEFENDANT has alleged that she believes that Mr. Iuele was an alias used by James Bugler. DEFENDANT has recently written an email to Mr. Bulger’s current attorney, Carney Law Office, with a request for clarification of that issue.)
- When DEFENDANT expressed disbelief that Mr. Iuele was capable of financing the needs of her companies, she was referred to Attorney F. Lee Bailey for confirmation of Mr. Iuele’s capabilities. It should be noted here that DEFENDANT found out later that Attorney F. Lee Bailey has now been disbarred in Massachusetts and Florida. At the time of the referral Mr. Bailey had a publicly positive reputation. Mr. Bailey’s office spoke very highly of Mr. Iuele.
- It was Mr. Iuele who told the DEFENDANT that he had done extensive business with Mr. Cabral and Mr. Fred Attala. Mr. Iuele instructed DEFENDANT to deliver a lending refinancing package to Mr. Attala, whose office, at that time, was a hangar at the Manchester Air Port. DEFENDANT delivered the package there. Not knowing, at that time, that Mr. Attala and Mr. Cabral were partners.
- Additionally, Mr. Iuele said that that he had done a lot of business with the Bank of Boston, at the time Ms. Crowninshield was employed there, prior to her becoming a General Partner in Boston Ventures, a well know vulture capitalist firm located in Boston, Massachusetts.
- It has recently been discovered that Ms. Crowninshield’s partnership Boston Ventures other known associates include certain Bain Capital companies. At the time Ms. Crowninshield had offered to partner with the DEFENDANT, she also disclosed that her Boston Venture partnership had financial interests in American Media Inc. Public records show other associations between the Boston Private Equity Pirates.
- Another circle of links that the REPORT considered ‘Delusional’ was that of Mr. Iuele as agent for Drexel Burham Lambert (a Michael Milken affiliated company that was shut down due to fraud, which ended with Mr. Milken being convicted, and sentenced for his part); and its, and consequently Mr. Iuele’s, ties to Alan Teale ( another convicted ponzi schemer). [Refer back to Installment #2]
- The direct link between Mr. Iuele, Mr. Milken, Alan Teale and Mr. Gene Phillips of First Equity Insurance involved a stock certificate issued by the Ecotech Company (another stock fraud company where, in March 1996, DEFENDANT testified for the Organized Crime Prosecutor in USA v Rennert. Six defendants were found guilty on all charges)
- After DEFENDANT testified she requested that OC Prosecutor extend the investigation into Mr. Iuele aka James Bulger, and Mr. Phillips. DEFENDANT was informed that FBI Head Quarters in Boston, and perhaps Washington DC, refused to extend the investigation. And, DEFENDANT was left to bear the brunt of the retaliation for her testimony where the six defendants were convicted, but, the creators of the fraud were still at large.
- Ecotech stock came into (BAM’s) possession as liquidated damages when First Equity Insurance Company (a Gene Phillips holding) defaulted, in March 1991, on its offer to purchase Senter (the company that owned the property that Mr. Cabral claimed to have taken a mortgage on in 1987; and, then allegedly assigned his rights, if any, to Ms. Crowninshield, on May 2, 1994.
- Just recently rollingstone.com published an ARTICLE titled "Greed and Debt the True Story of Mitt Romney that links Bain Capital and Mr. Romney to Michael Milken". One sentence in the article makes the point that supports DEFENDANT’s personal experiences. The reporter Matt Taibbi wrote: "In short, one of Romney's first takeover deals was financed by dirty money – and one of the corporate chiefs about to receive a big payout from Bain was married to the judge hearing the case. Although the SEC took no formal action, it issued a sharp criticism, complaining that Romney was allowing Milken's money to have a possible influence over the administration of justice."
- On June 21, 2012 Rolling Stone published another ARTICLE also written by Matt Taibbi. It was titled "The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia -How America's biggest banks took part in a nationwide bid-rigging conspiracy - until they were caught on tape." The article is all about ‘bid rigging’, and cartels.
- The State’s REPORT also incorporated the name of Milo Pike (an individual who was also convicted of ‘bid rigging’). Mr. Pike’s consigliore at that time was Edward Fitzgerald (one and the same NH Superior Court Judge Edward Fitzgerald that found on August 25, 1999 that the Bridgeton Co (according to its McLane Law Office attorneys court testimony) was owned solely by Ms. Crowninshield, at that time, and that it was entitled to foreclose on its allegedly legal mortgage assignment that now allegedly incorporated the ‘water rights’ upon which Netmark International, Inc. held a recorded easement deed. Neither Bridgeton Co., nor Ms Crowninshield had any claim against Netmark International, Inc. Nor did they ever raise one.
- With respect to Robin Arkley II and Waukewan Holding, Inc. the links are still being developed…. However, it is a matter of public record that Attorney Robin Arkley’s legal specialty is tax shelter financial planning, and that he made his early fortune purchasing bundles of real estate assets at deep discount from the FDIC in the late 80’s and early 90’s.
By this time, Readers may be trying to figure out why Netmark International, Inc would be the target of these very "greedy" and powerful Boston Private Equity Pirates. It was a small start up company. Not a big target. Or, perhaps it was?
The facts laid out in the Series of Installments clearly show that the Boston Private Equity Tax Dodging, Money Laundering Pirates had targeted, and framed the DEFENDANT. At first perhaps, as DEFENDANT would argue, if she had an opportunity, it was just in retaliation for ‘blowing the whistle’ on their tax dodging, money laundering ponzi scheme operated by David Williams, and his Blondheim company. In other words: payback.
But, the early retaliation "bust out" schemes failed: The DEFENDANT was able to make ‘lemonade’ out of the destined to fail ‘lemon’ called the High Birches Resort Project. At the 11th hour with Cabral’s foreclosure immanent, DEFENDANT was granted a temporary injunction. The injunction was won because the DEFENDANT, in September of 1993, discovered the long hidden secret that had been bubbling beneath the property located in North Woodstock, NH. This secret was its extraordinary hydrology, i.e., its hidden spring reservoir estimated to be at least ten million gallons of rechargeable spring water daily.
The highest and best use of the North Woodstock property was never a resort development, but instead the highest and best use was to create a spring water source for the bottled water industry. Therefore, DEFENDANT’s company Senter, in 1994, applied for, and was granted, a large ground water permit that allowed it to extract up to one million gallons of spring water daily. The springs were named "High Birches Springs". [Refer to Source Approval Summary]
The DEFENDANT, soon after the High Birches Springs were permitted by the State of New Hampshire, incorporated Netmark International, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation. She then obtained the necessary permits from the State of Massachusetts, among other states, and began her nascent branded -High Birches Mountain Spring Water – Starts Pure Stays Pure – The Sustainable Source - beverage business. The first product that was sold nationally via the US Postal Service was the branded product High Birches Mountain Spring Water, and sold in 12 oz Tetra Pak boxes. [See product information here]
At this time, DEFENDANT would caution the Readers not to consider that the "Pirates" coveted the recently branded retail business. It is difficult to imagine that these ‘Private Equity Pirates’ wanted to operate the nascent environmentally friendly business. At the outset DEFENDANT had offered, Ms. Crowninshield a partnership in the beverage business. At first the offer was accepted, and then on May 2, 1994, it became clear that the offer had been rejected. Instead, Ms Crowninshield conspired with private actors, agents, and agencies, of the Federal Government, State of New Hampshire, and perhaps others, to take it all.
The facts are clear. The theft could not have been accomplished without the assistance of certain agents of the FDIC, and, in conjunction with the State of New Hampshire’s agents and agencies; to include at that time, the Office of Attorney General, The NH Grafton County Superior Court Judge Fitzgerald, agents of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services; and, most recently, New Hampshire Department of Corrections and its Office of Forensic Examiners: The agency that authored the subject REPORT testimony that was submitted to the Laconia District Court on October 13, 2009 by the State’s Prosecutor, Robert Libby.
A central issue that may give the Readers some insight into the ‘Private Equity Pirates’ motivation is whether fresh drinking water should be considered a basic right of life? Or, should it become a commodity to be traded on the various commodities exchanges? The importance of these questions should be in the forefront of the Reader’s minds while they decide whether the Laconia District Court’s decisions to twice affirm the State’s REPORT was correct; or, were those decisions made due to a ‘fraud upon the court’? The prize at the end of this rainbow for the "Pirates" was ‘blue gold’ (and lots, and lots, of it.)
The following arguments offered by the DEFENDANT should help the Readers to understand the extreme measures the State and others were willing to take in order to insure that DEFENDANT – Jean E. Allan aka Jean E. Allan Sovik – was declared ‘not competent’ (in complete violation of her guaranteed due process constitutional rights) . The result so far has been that her ‘meritorious affirmative defense’ to her arrest has never been heard, in a full and fair trial.
The word "process" can be defined as a series of actions or operations that lead to a particular result. The information that DEFENDANT has laid out in the prior eleven installments should, by now, have shown the reader that the State’s ‘result’ that it sought by introducing its REPORT into the records in re: 09-cr-1293-4; and 09-cr-4147 was to induce the Laconia District Court into issuing its desired rulings that DEFENDANT was ‘not competent’ and ‘not restorable to competency’.
But, why would the State of New Hampshire desire such a result? As the Series of Installments point out, this process has been continuing since 1989. As the definition suggests, ‘process is a series of actions (not just one act) that culminated in State v Jean E. Allan. So this Summation will continue to concentrate on what the DEFENDANT has laid out to be the alleged wanton and reckless use by its agents of the State of New Hampshire’s ‘policing powers’ to effect the taking of the High Birches Springs water rights for the benefit of Boston Private Equity ‘Pirate’ Martha HW Crowninshield, and her named, and yet to be named associates.
As Installment #11 "A Daughter’s Promise" has already pointed out, NH RSA 99-D has been promulgated to create a defense and indemnification of State Officers and Employees. The only exception is that if those State employees acted in a wanton or reckless manner.
- Willful and wonton conduct means "acting consciously in disregard of or acting with a reckless indifference to the consequences.."
The argument provided in the Series of Installments should allow the Readers to decide ‘point by point’ whether the State’s agents acted outside the protective cloak of NH RSA 99-D when it deprived DEFENDANT of her 14th Amendment Rights to due process and equal protection under the law, which include:
- 14th Amendment Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.
- Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.
And, if, in the Readers’ opinion, the State did violate DEFENDANT’s 14th Amendment Constitutional Rights, are its agents covered parties pursuant to NH RSA 99-D?
So let us now concentrate on the State’s actors most likely motives, which, make no mistake, begin and end with the ownership of the water rights to the High Birches Spring source. What did the State get from the association? According to the NH DES online Remediation File, we know for a fact that Ms. Crowninshield reimbursed the State for the clean-up cost. If other promises were made to the State, by the Boston ‘Private Equity Pirate’, they have yet to be discovered. But, since there never was an investigation into the quid pro quo agreement between the State and Ms. Crowninshield, we may never know for certain what other incentives were offered. Considering the facts outlined above with respect to the May 2, 1994 fraud, the ‘Crony Capitalists’ that Ms. Crowninshield considered ‘friends’ are the upper echelon of the wealthiest "privileged class" in America.
As the State’s REPORT acknowledges, the acquisition of the High Birches source property was a tortuous one. The State’s interpretation can be found on page 5 of its REPORT. The DEFENDANT’s summary can be found on page 4 of its ‘case study’ letter to the OIGs of SEC and US DOJ. The series of links at the beginning of this Summation coupled with a thorough reading of the Series of Installments should provide the Readers with the gist of the acquisition history up to the 9/11 sabotage of Netmark’s ‘production well’. The State’s online Remediation File describes the cleanup enterprise, but sadly most if not all of the documents that had once been in the possession of the NH Office of Attorney General have gone missing.
Although, the State in its REPORT did acknowledge the potential existence of Netmark’s retail brand, the following is the totality of its comments.
- "It is unclear if the business actually operated or was planned to operation by Ms. Allan, amid all 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."
- "She (DEFENDANT) references Enron in one email to Attorney Wolpin, (Recall Rule 1.6) 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.""
- "She (DEFENDANT) cited High Birches Mountain Spring Water’s trademark as "starts pure, stays pure", and her spreadsheet 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."
However, the data supplied to the New Hampshire Attorney General shows that Netmark’s branded water business was active, and it had been selling the 12 oz Tetra Pak boxes of branded product up through 9/11 1997. It is also true that the permitted branded retail spring water business had just barely begun to ship its 12 oz packages boxed in Tetra Pak nationwide via United States Postal System before the production borehole and several surrounding monitoring wells were sabotaged. Therefore, it would only be conjecture as to what the business interruption damage would ultimately have been established.
However, the REPORT’s statement references the wholesale bottled water sales based solely upon the sources permitted capabilities. The Readers should be interested to know that during the reference period of time the National Bottled Water Sales in the Still Water category, of which High Birches Spring water would be categorized, "increased dramatically over the past several decades, reaching a valuation of around $60 billion and a volume of more than 115,000,000 cubic metres (3.0×1010 US gal) in 2006. [Click BOTTLED WATER link]
Also as this Summation has emphasized, Netmark’s un-encumbered perpetual easement deed that was filed with the Grafton Country Registry of Deeds, is a document that has been downloaded on multiple occasions by the Readers. Clearly, a fair reading of the law with respect to the Water Supply & Distribution Easement Deed should have convinced the State’s Office of Forensic Examiners that more likely than not DEFENDANT’s claim that Netmark’s superior interest in the High Birches Springs is real and not "Delusional". If this is found to be accurate, then the only conclusion the Readers can take away is that Netmark International, Inc. was the final target of the Boston ‘Private Equity Pirates’. The Water Supply & Water Distribution Easement Deed was public proof that the "water rights" had been legally separated from the property
As the Reader’s are already aware, DEFENDANT has asked the State’s Office of Attorney General in an email to provide her with a legal opinion with respect to the recorded subject easement deed. As of this Summation, no response has been forthcoming.
In direct contradiction to the State’s forensic examiner REPORT’s diminishment of DEFENDANT’s claims for damages, a few months ago, on June 12, 2012, Judge Michael Deasey, a NH Bankruptcy judge, ordered that the Malom Group pay USA Springs, a permitted still water source located in Nottingham, NH, $60,000,000. The Bankruptcy court records show that the judgment was valued upon a loan offer that the Malom Group made to USA Springs. The lawyer for the Malom Group is on record stating that the primary value that the loan offer was based upon was for the NH State permits that allowed the USA Springs to extract up to 300,000 gallons per day from the water source. [Judge Orders USA Springs lender to fulfill $60m deal]
It is a hard cold mathematical fact, not ‘self fueled or self justified’, that if the value set in the USA Springs matter were to be equally applied to the value of the High Birches Springs permit’s extraction capacity of up to one million gallons of water daily, the Readers would have to conclude that the State should be now aware that DEFENDANT is not Delusional. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in damages that apply to the New Hampshire large ground water extraction permits alone.
Now we have reached the crux of the motive: Recall that the State made it a point to condemn DEFENDANT’s claim about the value of Netmark’s easement deed. The REPORT considered DEFENDANT DELUSIONAL to assume that the Boston Private Equity Pirates were trying to corner the market on fresh water sources so that it could be traded as a commodity; or, that the owner of the High Birches Springs could be a "monopoly maker or breaker". (Again, recall that the statement was made when High Birches was a permitted commercial spring water source whose one million gallon a day ‘permit’ was capable of supplying 20% of the existing bottled water market.) Now, consider this… if the value of the sources reservoir of up to ten million gallons recharging daily was valued as a commodity reserve, the value is even greater. In fact: almost incalculable. Perhaps even the State of New Hampshire would have to concede that under certain market circumstances control of the High Birches Springs source would most likely have been, at that time, a ‘monopoly maker or breaker’. Perhaps it still is today? Certainly its ‘taking’ is a crime of Balzac proportions.
The State of New Hampshire has been aware from the inception of the DEFENDANT’s companies that the goal of "The Sustainable Source" has been to provide a reliable model based on the hydro geological capabilities of each individual source to be used as a guideline for the State, and potentially the Nation, in order to create a National sustainable water policy that would protect its citizens right’s to water. The battle lines were drawn at that time. If fresh water were to become a legal commodity, it could, and most likely would become weaponized, just like oil is today. And, no one should forget that there is no substitute for water. Water is Life, whereas Oil is Lifestyle. It will become patently obvious to the Readers by the State’s agents progressive actions which side of the argument the State was on, in 1997, and in its REPORT testimony dated October 13, 2009.
The information that has been incorporated into the eleven installments in this Series NO WITNESS = NO CASE have been carefully laid out by the DEFENDANT. It is for the Readers to determine whether, as the State has testified, that "The volume and array of details, and the sometimes significant degrees of separation between the details, are what prove untenable, and can only be held together with a self contained and self justifying delusional understanding."
Exactly what did the State mean by the above statement? And, since when did ‘the volume and array of details’ necessarily become a negative, if they can be proven to be the truth?
Let’s take a moment and examine the State’s progressive "policing actions". The Readers can then decide if the DEFENDANT’s 14th Amendments rights were violated, or not. From time to time public Information has been incorporated into this Series that factually support DEFENDANT’s arguments:
- Incorporated into the State of New Hampshire’s Department of Environmental Services online Remediation, which deals exclusively to the sabotage of the High Birches Springs ‘production well’, are several references that ( without any due process, or independent due diligence) the State of New Hampshire cut a "sweetheart" deal with Ms Crowninshield.
- It is clear that either by active, or tacit agreement, the State’s Attorney General, and all of Ms Crowninshield’s advisors, insisted on calling the project clean-up ‘the High Birches site’. They are very careful not to ever mention the word ‘springs’.
- And, although DEFENDANT and Netmark International Inc.’s water engineer, Lewis Co, consistently informed all the relevant authorities and private consultants that Netmark had a superior lien on the "production well" that was sabotaged (due to Netmark’s filing of its Water Supply & Water Distribution Easement Deed on April 4, 1997). The superior lien is only mentioned once. This is in a correspondence letter from NH AG Ransom with respect to the title search that the State had completed.
- Legally, one would think that the State would have been prudent to have liened the assets of both Senter and Netmark considering that it was aware, at that time, of Netmark’s easement deed. But, it only put a super lien on Senter’s property. Why is that?
- It is a matter of public, and court records that shortly after DEFENDANT reported that the High Birches main production borehole had been found sabotaged on 9/11/97. Circumstantial evidence shows that some, yet to be named state actor, approached the Federal Court Judge in re: Senter et al v Crowninshield et al, the 93-A civil Rico matter. In that communication, the State of New Hampshire stated its desire to the Court to ‘police’ its own environmental problems. The State’s request was granted and Senter’s 93-A civil RICO case was dismissed.
- It is a matter of public and court record that at least one law enforcement agent of the State of New Hampshire, without any due process or due diligence, made an initial determination that DEFENDANT was the primary suspect.
- It is a matter of public and court record that a high ranking agent, or agents, of the State told the Federal EPA investigator that it wanted to do its own investigation and therefore took jurisdiction of the sabotage of the Netmark’s main production borehole and surrounding monitoring wells.
- It is a matter of public and court record that the State did not take custody of any of the Federal EPA investigator’s findings. That evidence was not considered.
- It is a matter of public and court record that the State’s Attorney General Office did not interview anyone affiliated with DEFENDANT, Netmark, or Senter with respect to the 9/11 sabotage prior its closing the investigation. [See August 20, 1999 NH AG letter]
- Essentially the State used its ‘policing’ powers to close the investigation on August 20, 1999, after it refused to give the DEFENDANT an innocent landowner letter, thus leaving her tainted as the only suspect. This action of the New Hampshire Office of Attorney General prevented DEFENDANT and her companies from collecting upon the business interruption insurance that they had paid for and were entitled to receive in order to redevelop another main production borehole up gradient to the sabotaged borehole.
- And, in conjunction with the actions of the State Attorney General, the State Department of Environmental Services decommissioned the High Birches Springs, and denied it the opportunity to develop an up gradient production borehole. [refer to NH DES Remediation File]
- It is a matter of public and court record that the State of New Hampshire agreed to a public/private partnership with civil RICO defendant Crowninshield, whereby Crowninshield paid the State a reported $100,000, and in addition the State granted Ms. Crowninshield the legal responsibility for the Remediation Plan. Ms. Crowninshield paid her private consultants to manage the State’s clean up efforts. [refer to NH DES Remediation File]
- Once the State had released the contaminated site on August 20, 1999, Crowninshield’s company, Bridgeton Corporation, was allowed to foreclose on the mortgage that Ms.Crowinshield had assigned to it. This was the same mortgage that Mr. Cabral had illegally assigned to her on May 2, 1994.
- As an extra bonus, NH Grafton County Superior Court Judge Fitzgerald, (former consigliore to the convicted bid rigger Milo Pike) found in his August 23rd decision that despite knowing of Netmark’s Water Supply & Distribution easement deed that had been filed by Netmark in Grafton County Registry of Deeds (which was housed in the same building as the Superior Court) that the "water rights" were not separated from the land. Therefore, as if by magic they were given to Bridgeton Co. No consideration was given to Netmark, in this ‘great crime’.
- Bridgeton Co. was the only bidder at the foreclosure auction.
To believe Judge Fitzgerald’s August 23, 1999 Order was not a fraud upon the court, the Readers have to disregard all the above presented facts with respect to fraud, the existence of the States’ permits and water contracts publicly filed by Senter and Netmark International Inc., and most of all: the sale of the High Birches Mountain Spring Water product as reported to NH AG K. Allen Brooks.
Installment #10 explains the relevant law involved, if the statement posed in Installment #4 is YES. The posited statement was: "New Hampshire’s (October 13, 2009 Forensic Evaluation Report) Defends its Bar Instead of Its Constitution and Rule of Law". USC Title 18 Sections 1512, 1513, and 1951 cover the penalties for witness tampering/retaliation and The Hobbs Act.
The case in front of the Laconia District Court in 2009 was allegedly a Class B misdemeanor criminal trespassing charge. But, the issues that the State incorporated into its 16 page REPORT, of which the first ten pages was its interpretation of the facts that led up to the 9/11 1997 sabotage of Netmark International Inc.’s "production well", date all the way back to 1989.
Therefore, the linked criminal acts should be fair game for the RICO ACT: That is if any government agency of competent jurisdiction has the political will to open an investigation and then follow the facts wherever they may lead.
Let’s re-examine some of the information that DEFENDANT has already laid out in the prior eleven installments:
- The intent of Installment #7 was to explore whether the State’s REPORT met the ‘clear and convincing’ standard of care that is required of it by law.
- The information shows that the State faxed its REPORT to the LDC literally minutes prior to the October 13, 2009 hearing in re: 09-cr-1294-4, on the merits of the criminal trespassing case.
- There is no information that shows the State faxed all the supporting Sources of Information documents that were incorporated into the REPORT, as 1-16.
- State Prosecutor Libby knew or should have known that he held a weak legal hand due, in part, to Southern v Mendum, 1931 WL 1104, at 7 (NH) where the New Hampshire Supreme Court found that "the interest of the mortgagee is not in fact real estate, but a personal chattel, a mere security for the debt, an interest in the land inseparable from the debt, and incident to the debt, which cannot be detached from its principal."
- And, Prosecutor Libby also knew that US Supreme Court found in Carpenter v Longen 83 US 272374 (1872) that "An assignment of the Note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity". And, that these legal issues, among others, were currently the subject matter of an ongoing civil matter where DEFENDANT had been granted a temporary restraining order against Waukewan Holding, LLC, the principal complainant to the criminal trespassing charge: the subject of the October 13, 2009 hearing.
- Prosecutor Libby should have recognized after a thorough reading of the REPORT prior to submitting it to the LDC that it was incomplete (it lacked 1-16 Sources of Information exhibits), and therefore should not have been submitted as evidence of expert witness testimony until such time those exhibits were attached.
- Prosecutor Libby also should have recognized that the creators of the REPORT were grossly negligent, if not wanton and reckless in the procedures that they undertook to prepare and distribute the REPORT. (Installment #7 described in great detail what is required by law and the Guidelines promulgated by the American Academy of Psychiatry.)
- Prosecutor Libby also knew or should have known about the precedent cases that had already been decided by the NH Supreme Court, and most especially as laid out in Petition of Bagley, 128 NH 275, 284 (1986) which stated that "the general rule is that a person’s liberty may be impaired when governmental action seriously damages his standing and associations in the community." And the court went on to find that "We also recognize that the stigmatization that attends certain government determinations may amount to a deprivation of constitutionally protected liberty". "Thus, we find ample support in our jurisprudence for the proposition that reputational stigma can, by itself, constitute a deprivation of liberty deserving of due process."
Considering all of the information that has been laid out, especially in the prior Installments (#7 and #10) and the bulleted issues above, a reasonable prosecutor who had sworn a duty to "Do Justice" would not have submitted the REPORT to the LDC, let alone an incomplete REPORT. Yet, Prosecutor Libby continued to introduce the legally insufficient REPORT into evidence to the LDC, more than once. Is Prosecutor Libby entitled to immunity pursuant to NH RSA 99-D?
Just how legally insufficient, was the October 13, 2009 REPORT?
According to the Guidelines promulgated by the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, the simple answer is very legally insufficient. (Please review Installment #7, and DEFENDANT’s Complaint to NH Boards of Mental Health and Medicine)
The Readers choice is clear: Does the DEFENDANT’s testimony reach ‘Balzac’ criminal proportions, or is the DEFENDANT suffering from a Delusional Disorder? If the former is true, then it appears that the only way this can be proven is if an agency, or agencies, of competent jurisdiction open an independent investigation into DEFENDANT’s allegation as laid out herein in this Series of Installments to include this Summation. And, as Installments #9 and #10 clearly describe, USC Title 18, commonly called the RICO ACT is one of the enabling laws that would allow such an investigation to proceed.
Respectfully Submitted (September 07, 2012) by its pro se author
Jean E. Allan aka Jean E. Allan Sovik
|
