Mother Opposing Judical Oppression Takes on a Civil Suit-New Hampshire

The Truth Bites "NH"
Mother Opposing Judical Oppression "Takes on a Civil Suit against NH DHHS and Others"
On 12/16/10, Denise-Marie McIntosh et., al., mother/plaintiff filed an APPEAL / BRIEF / COMPLAINT (attached) in accordance with NH RSA 169 C:28 I.

Upon arrival to Nashua Superior Court South, at approx. 9:15 am, the Plaintiff, was initially told by Court employees she was in the wrong court, when she pressed the law, they told her she filed the wrong financial affidavit and the wrong motion for a waiver of fees, as a De Nova appeal from a District Court matter had no fees or rules associated, just the sheriff fees, she was then told by a Deb that Judge Lynn ruled against Sherriff fees being provided. The plaintiff pressed that she had a right to file the motion and that Judge Lynn hadn’t ruled against anything in her case yet. When she asked to speak with the Clerk of Court, Marshall Buttrick she was denied. The Plaintiff briefly left and called the Administrative Office of courts who could not answer her question because a Barbara Swed was out till next week. The mother called the Merrimack County Superior Court and spoke with the Clerk of Courts William McGraw, who stated "we only get 4 or 5 a year and there are no charges associated, he confirmed there are no rules on filing we take in whatever is written up as long as it’s legible". The Mother returned to the Court and relayed the same, the supervisor Deb stated no not here. The mother insisted that all the courts in New Hampshire have the same rules, to which she replied I found that you do not have to change forms but you need to file a motion for a waiver fees first and come back with your motion once it’s approved. The mother stated it was going in today. She grudgingly replied, I can take it right up to a Judge now, within 20 minutes it was denied. The clerk stated she could ask her to reconsider and as in the other attachment she did, this time it took the Judge almost 3 hours to deny it stating rule 169 applied. The court told her to come back at another time, because they closed at 1pm. The plaintiff said NO I AM FILING TODAY. They stated the fee would be $205, adding a $25.00 fee that the rules specifically stated in 169. IV B 1. Did not apply to her case. Deputy Clerk Kenneth McHugh, passed by and the Plaintiff got his attention and explained the above, and asked him to check the procedure with the Merrimack County Clerk, he reply why not Manchester (now in same building), The mother stated she had spoken to John Safford and he had stated he had no idea because he didn’t believe he ever had an appeal from a DCYF case. McHugh worked with the Judge and simply got $25.00 off and the mother was able to leave about 3:40pm, paying the $205.00 with the court refunding a check for $25.00. On her way out McHugh asked her if she really wanted to pursue this… the long and short of her reply was yes, no NH lawyer would take it because two who went up against DCYF were disbarred, a GAL was threatened by Maggie Bishop to back off her support of a foster mother and a Lawyer who handled a case for a Hindu couple receive threats from the division as well. If I do not bring the issues to the public’s attention who will? My child has the right to know the truth, thank Judge Colburn for recognizing the case as an original pleading when it’s an appeal, now it will be public knowledge.

Facts show that the Departments of Health and Human Services put together unconstitutionally gathered evidence, fraudulent fact witnesses, an investigation based on improper analysis, that they were untrained to reach, and/or that evidence was purposefully ignored, the analysis of which would have conclusively proven the Plaintiff’s innocence in the entire matter behind the De Novo appeal.

This information needs to be public because of threats made to her and others mothers in the NH community when fighting for their child’s rights arising out of domestic violence cases, where the father in this matter admitted to strangling her and the court a marital master pulled the order, mothers are being denied custody because they are deemed to be “over protective” and therefore unfriendly to the fathers who abused them.
More information will be coming as this case progresses check back for a copy of the Pleading and supporting documentation including an unsolictied letter from Commissioner of DHHS Toumpas