Jean E. Allan aka Jean E. Allan Sovik

PO Box 1545

Center Harbor, NH 03226


June 1, 2010

Governor John Lynch

Office of the Governor

Capitol Building

Concord, NH 03301

RE: Letter of Complaint re: RSA 99-D – ‘wanton and or reckless’ clause exemption

Dear Governor Lynch:

If you were to check the in-box files you should find a record of many well documented communications that I have written to you over the past several years. These communications have expressed my family’s, and my, need for assistance from the State of New Hampshire with respect to the many and extreme damages that we have incurred to our persons and property. All of the recorded acts have been in violation of our State and Federal Constitutional Rights.

A few days ago The Union Leader reported that when "asked about lenders' call for Hildreth's removal, Colin Manning, spokesman for Gov. John Lynch, said, The governor has said there was a clear failure of the management at these state agencies. There were numerous red flags that were not followed up on." And, the article continued to state that "the governor has talked with the council and is going to continue to talk to the council about how to address these management failures."

After reading the Report of the State Attorney General, and reviewing some of the testimony that has been given to the Joint Legislative Committee that is in the process of investigating what went so very wrong, it is clear that the State’s defense is that mistakes were made, in fact "serious mistakes were made", but that there was no "cover-up". The implication in all these statements is that the State’s sovereign immunity is in tact, and it should survive the legal brunt of the impending law suits filed by the victims of the FRM Ponzi scheme that has reported to be operating in this state, dating back to 1989. Of note, the complaints that my family has filed also date back to 1989.

The State may be accurate in its defense assessment against the FRM Ponzi scheme victims, but as you are very much aware that defense does not hold up very well against my family’s damage claims. This letter is for the purpose of refreshing your memory that other more serious ‘management failures’ have been ongoing with respect to my family and myself.

NH RSA 99-D is "the doctrine of sovereign immunity of the state, and by the extension of that doctrine, the official immunity of officers, trustees, officials, or employees of the state or any agency thereof acting within the scope of official duty and not in a wanton or reckless manner, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, is hereby adopted as the law of the state."

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the words wanton or reckless(ness) as follows:

  • wanton as: reckless, heedless, malicious, undisciplined, unruly, disregarding rights and safety of others.
  • recklessness in American law as "Conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but...foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk," or alternatively as "a state of mind in which a person does not care about the consequences of his or her actions." Black's Law dictionary 1053 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 8th ed. abr. 2005). In American courts, a wrongdoer who recklessly causes harm can be held to the same liability as a person who intentionally does so.

In the criminal law, "recklessness (also called unchariness) is one of the four possible classes of mental state constituting mens rea (the Latin for "guilty mind"). To commit an offence of ordinary as opposed to strict liability, the prosecution must be able to prove both a mens rea and an actus reus, i.e., a person cannot be guilty of the offence for their actions alone. There must also be an appropriate intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence at the relevant time (see concurrence). Recklessness may constitute an offense against property or involve significant danger to another person.

 RSA 99-D clearly carves out of the State’s immunity protection the two terms of wanton or reckless. Black’s Law Dictionary further defines gross negligence as the intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in a reckless disregard of the consequences of the life of another and consists of consciousness or voluntary act or omission which is likely to result in grave injury when in the fact of clear and present danger of which the alleged tort feasor is aware."

And the definition of Criminal Gross Negligence takes the mens rea one step further. Criminal Gross Negligence is "Negligence that is accompanied by acts of commission, or omission of a wanton or willful nature, showing a reckless or indifferent disregard of the rights of others, under circumstances reasonably calculated to produce injury, or which make it probable that injury will be occasioned, and the offender knows or is charged with knowledge of the probable results of his acts." And, when criminal gross negligence is joined with Willful Misconduct, defined as: "Conduct committed with an intentional or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or with an intentional disregard of a duty necessary to the safety of another's property", the risk of liability for damages is heighten even more. But, when the above two acts are combined with Malicious Abuse of Legal Process, which has been defined as the "Perversion of court process to accomplish some end which the process was not designed to accomplish, and does not arise from the regular use of process, even with ulterior motives. Intent is to secure ends other than those intended by law through willful application of court process," and thus risking the State’s very Brand.

Throughout all of this well-documented history that I have outlined over the past many years, the State’s acts, or inactions, constitute an established pattern and practice of ratifying and complying the flagrant violations against my family’s and my civil rights. A reasonable person of my family’s, and my peers most probably would define the State’s actions to have been "wanton or reckless". If over the period of all these years, the State has misplaced, or otherwise destroyed, the well-documented complaints that have been filed with it, please have someone from your office contact me, and I will assist them in completing the missing bits of the voluminous file.

Also, another resource for your Office’s information would be to examine the case files bearing my name, and the names of affiliated parties, filed with the State’s Judicial Branch. A recent filing is a Brief filed with the New Hampshire Supreme Court in re: Waukewan Holdings, LLC v Jean E. Allan et al 2010-0051, which incorporates by reference related NH State cases dating back to, at least, 1994. Additionally, the complaints have also been filed with the Criminal Division of the US DOJ, as well as other Agencies of the Federal Government.

If any person from your Office would like to contact me, I will be at the above address for the remainder of this week. After that I have made plants to be traveling. While I am traveling, I will be periodically checking my e-mail:



Jean E. Allan aka Jean E. Allan Sovik

Cc: Criminal Division US DOJ

      [This Page Last Updated on June 01, 2010]