[Art.] 8 [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public's Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public's right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.
June 2, 1784
Accordingly, the caption of your article, "Legislator Wants McHugh Off Bench" is in error and should be corrected. I am obligated by my oath to be the "substitute and agent" of the grievant in this matter. Major James Macfarlane, has given me written "instructions", as he has the reserved RIGHT to do so, pursuant to Article 32;
[Art.] 32. [Rights of Assembly, Instruction, and Petition.] The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common good, give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by way of petition or remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.
I am a Life Member of the VFW and respect and honor my Oath to support and maintain the constitutions that my fallen comrades gave their lives to preserve. Their sacrifice permits me my obligation to exercise my first amendment right and obligation to the grievant, to sponsor this "Bill of Address". I am honoring my Oath; and by holding a public hearing, the legislature is upholding the laws, as the framers of the constitution intended. It has been said, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant known to man." I am sure you will agree that my failure to perform my duty would be a dishonor of my oath.
I wish to emphasize and correct your reference to me as the grievant. I must state clearly, this is not my grievance! This particular grievance belongs to Major James MacFarlane. The constitution, and my duty, requires me to bring his grievance to the public. (Article 8 and Article 32 supra) You and the public should be informed that Major Macfarlane is not alone in his grievance against Judge Kenneth McHugh and his search for justice. The Majors complaint appears to be the first of what is just the tip of the iceberg.
It was heartening to see that Judge McHugh does not intend to claim any immunity at the hearing. The public deserves to hear why he went out of his way to prevent Major McFarland’s request for a Ruling simply stating he was not married to anyone. It would seem that such as simple request would not entail the unlucky court activity that has consumed at least a decade.
The General Court may bear some responsibility for Major Macfarlane’s travails. The legislature makes the laws and the courts are supposed to interpret the syntax therein. The details of how the Majors controversy went awry should be the subject of another report, but suffice it to say, a Bill of Address is the obligation of the General Court to bring the issue into the public eye.
There is public knowledge that Judge Kenneth McHugh has previous and more serious charges against him, all documented in the court matter cited as SN Servicing v. Jean Allan, pro se, currently on Appeal before the New Hampshire Supreme court. The underlying facts of that matter suggest that Judge McHugh allowed his court’s process, under color of law, to be used in order to "transfer" property without agreement. I find it interesting that Judge McHugh used the same pejorative words to characterize Ms. Allan as he did in the Major McFarland matter. Further, and most importantly was his denial of "newly discovered evidence", sought to be introduced and admitted in an evidentiary hearing by Ms. Allan. In the Allan matter, this evidence involved sworn testimony that a U.S. Federal lawyer coerced other Federal employee witnesses to lie to the Court, in a prior related matter. A very serious charge which obviously has criminal implications and demands at the very least a public hearing.
I have no knowledge of how many other complaints have been filed against Judge McHugh due to the fact that the Judicial Conduct Committee, which is not staffed by public servants, (hence is beyond right-to-know law) thus concealing the actions of those who may err for what ever motive.
Accordingly, a "Bill of Address" makes the General Court, the "court of last resort" for Major MacFarlane, and others in his class. Perhaps this constitutional exercise will open the eyes of the public to the plight of all those appearing pro se before, not only judge McHugh’s court but all courts in New Hampshire.
This is not an issue of politics but of a citizens RIGHT under the constitution for New Hampshire. This is why I have sponsored Major MacFarlane’s efforts in his quest for justice and freedom. After all, isn’t the States motto, "Live Free or Die" ?
Enclosed find self-explanatory MEMORANDUM covering the agenda and rules of the Joint Committee on Address (HA 1). I am mindful that the limited rules may diminish Major McFarland’s efforts to prevail, however there are many others, who are willing to testify to the broader issue of "abuse of court process" but who claim they are gagged by the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Hopefully this "Bill of Address" will be a "wake-up" call for the legislature to address laws that will provide protection for all pro se litigants and eliminate the churning process now being operated as a means of generating fees and justifying the existence of so called "attorney with privileges" or what is now better known as "JUST-US."
One must consider the classic admonition; "It is much better and cheaper to clean one’s own house than to have to pay others to do it for you."
Sincerely,
Dick Marple, Representative
Merrimack District #9
