Saturday, August 11, 2012

Citizen use of Grievance Committees against Tyrannical Judges?

Judicial Abuse of citizens has become so prevalent there had to be some sort of back swing. Is this a sign of good things to come in the judicial reform arena? Do we need widespread use of Grievance Committees to start taking back our US Constitutional Rights? Do we need more of our own media reporting to shine a light on these criminal operators of courts? 

 PETITION #6 Grievance of Candy Knightly. (Report filed 8/8/12) Published August 9, 2012 | By kevin MAJORITY Grievance Founded with Recommendations.‏

Published August 9, 2012 | By kevin

Grievance Founded with Recommendations.

Committee Majority Findings:
In a petition involving the Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), the Redress of Grievances Committee, after hearing from the Petitioner and her mother and seeing the documents supporting that testimony, finds numerous inexplicable acts that indicate wrongdoing by individuals in the Division.  It finds that the Division, which refused to attend our hearings to respond even to questions of a general nature concerning their policies in similar situations, appear to have been intent on denying several relatives of an admitted former drug addict (who had been in the act of cleaning up) of adopting her child despite our laws providing for placement with relatives Sec RSA 169-C:6 V, 169-C:6-a I(f), 169-C:19, and 169-C:24 In fact, the Committee saw evidence that DCYF actually facilitated the adoption of the child prior to the rights of the mother being terminated in court.  Further, DCYF failed to contact the actual father, instead providing the courts with the name of another individual, while twice through the courts denying paternity testing to the individual claiming to be the actual father. The Committee also agrees with the Petitioner that the courts systematically violated Part 1, Article 15 when it denied the admission of all exculpatory evidence showing the mother did not harm her child. While it seems possible that the acts of the agency were well intended in the interests of the child, they also seem to have been notably opposed to the rights of parents and relatives as provided for in our statutes. Because of the sheer number of supported allegations raising significant red flags in this case, the Committee believes this matter should be thoroughly investigated with a view to revisiting the decision to returning the child to the custody of relatives or its actual mother. For this reason, the Committee recommends, as we have in a prior report, that in the next legislative term a standing legislative oversight committee be set up to review situations like these in depth with agencies involved in potential wrongdoing against our citizens. Any such committee must, like that of the U.S. Congress, have full subpoena power. The Committee also recommends a complete review of any policies making individuals working for our agencies immune from prosecution with a view to limiting that immunity when, in the course of their duties, they infringe on the rights of our citizens. Vote 9-3.
Rep. Harry B. Hardwick for the Majority of the Committee
Grievance Unfounded.
Committee Minority Findings:
This petition was brought in the name of Candy Knightly. The Committee heard very little from her, although her mother worked extensively with the Committee over a period of more than a year. (The younger Ms. Knightly, the Petitioner, was an adult when the petition was filed.) Unfortunately, her mother’s wide-ranging testimony did not convince the Minority that her daughter’s petition was founded.
The Petitioner’s first suggested remedy was the impeachment of Judge Thomas Bamberger. There was no evidence that Judge Bamberger was guilty of anything other than making rulings which were unfavorable to the Knightly family. The Petition specifically accuses the Judge Bamberger of violating Part First Article 15 of the state constitution by refusing to admit certain pieces of exculpatory evidence. However, the Minority saw no proof that this evidence was improperly excluded or disregarded.  Also, in the opinion of the Minority, some of the evidence was not actually exculpatory. The Petitioner additionally wanted the legislature to “[i]ntroduce legislation to punish denial of due process by DCYF and the Nashua District Court and to facilitate re-unification of the Petitioner with her child.”  The Minority believes that this proposal would be unconstitutional.  Also, although DCYF and Judge Bamberger made a decision which was very painful for the entire Knightly family, the Minority is satisfied that this decision was neither arbitrary nor unfair.
Rep. Timothy Horrigan for the Minority of the Committee.

 DCF/DCYF Kidnapping Scam

Text with video:
Uploaded by on Feb 16, 2012
More info:

Steven G. Erickson interviews Dot Knightly of Nashua, New Hampshire by phone February 16, 2012. Grandparents often suffer because of an out of control judicial system. Family Court is about abuse, breaking up families, and profit for lawyers and other scammers.

We the people need Grand Juries, not tyrannical judges. New Hampshire, Florida, Connecticut, and so many other states are about abuse, not serving taxpayers. It is time to fight back.

Dot Knightly's blog: