The Truth Bites "NH": Attach to Civil Case 226-2010-CV-00612 against NH DHHS CPSW's Maggie Bishop and individuals hired by DCYF, Including the Reimbursment Unit if you have at ANY TIME received a bill from NH DHHS or had similar problems as in this brief at ANYTIME READ BELOW - STAND TOGETHER IF ONLY TO BE HEARD!

The Truth Bites "NH": Attach to Civil Case 226-2010-CV-00612 against NH DHHS CPSW's Maggie Bishop and individuals hired by DCYF, Including the Reimbursment Unit if you have at ANY TIME received a bill from NH DHHS or had similar problems as in this brief at ANYTIME READ BELOW - STAND TOGETHER IF ONLY TO BE HEARD!


Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Attach to Civil Case 226-2010-CV-00612 against NH DHHS CPSW's Maggie Bishop and individuals hired by DCYF, Including the Reimbursment Unit if you have at ANY TIME received a bill from NH DHHS or had similar problems as in this brief at ANYTIME READ BELOW - STAND TOGETHER IF ONLY TO BE HEARD!
ALL interested parties who wish to attach themselves to this lawsuit Docket #: 226-2010-CV-00612 can obtained a copy prior to the 20th of January 2011 at the Nashua Superior Court South, Spring Street, Nashua, NH you must have had similar issues, practiced by any of the Defendant’s included in the suit, you can file a Motion with the Superior Court by January 20, 2010 to be included in the lawsuit under superior court rule 15 Intervention. A sample of what a motion for attachment might look like (THIS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED legal advice, CHECK WITH AN ATTORNEY OR FILE Pro Se):


Plaintiff Attachment: 1) Must fill out a letter of Appearance at this site: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/forms/nhjb-2318-s.pdf

2) Motion

The State of New Hampshire
In The Superior Court of Hillsborough County South


DENISE-MARIE MCINTOSH, et. al., }
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT }
PLAINTIFF OF INTEREST }
Name } CIVIL ACTION
V. } MANDATORY DE NOVO APPEAL
} VOID JUDGMENT
} AND
STATE OF NH and DEPARTMENT OF } JURY DEMAND
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et., al., }
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE’s } Docket #: 226-2010-CV-00612


MOTION TO ATTACH AS A PLAINTIFF OF INTEREST
TO CIVIL CASE 226-2010-cv-00612
IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS


NOW COMES,_______________name who states as follows:
1. The Plaintiff of interest named above, asserts their right to attach to the above reference matter. Under Superior Court Rule 15. Intervention
Any person shown to be interested may become a party to any civil action upon filing and service of an Appearance and pleading briefly setting forth his relation to the cause; or, upon motion of any party, such person may be made a party by order of court notifying him to appear therein. If a party, so notified, neglects to file an Appearance and Answer on or before the date established by the court, that party shall be defaulted. No such default shall be set aside, except by agreement or by order of the court upon such terms as justice may require.

superior court rule 129



2. On ___________date the Plaintiff had dealings with the NH Department of DHHS/DCYF in the following manner In Re: ___JV___.
3. "Pleadings in this case are being filed by the Plaintiff, In Propria Persona, and (Pro Se)
4. On 12/16/10 This Court accepted entry of the original Plaintiff’s Appeal.
5. This plaintiff has the following claims against DCYF or named CPSW’s or Maggie Bishop and explain briefly explain the claims as they relate to what was filed by the original plaintiff. Not following the law, procedures, etc.
6. The actors named in this matter, are not immune from civil or criminal liability under NH RSA 169C:31 or otherwise, because the actors did NOT act in good faith but under the Color of Law. Including but not limited to the Judges named as defendants, under Civil Rights Vol. 4, US Supreme Court Digest pg. 555 Judges are not totally immune. In Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 429 (9th Cir. 1969) (dictum) that immunity attaches only insofar as the authorization to act extends.
7. Other Actors in their individual and official capacity did NOT act in good faith, the facts of the matter show the individuals’ actions, inaction and/or testimony are Falsifications in Official matters as outlined in NH RSA 641and/or under the Color of Law, in an Arbitrary Exercise of their official and/or Government Powers.
8. The public interest mandates that fundamental constitutional rights be aggressively enforced regardless of the size of anticipated damages; citizens like the Plaintiff who must sue to enforce the law have little or no money to hire an attorney. Reliance upon the pro bono efforts of private trial attorneys is insufficient to provide meaningful access to justice. A Plaintiff should not be denied or misdirected when seeking justice because of an inability to afford legal expenses.
I. PARTIES - AMENDMENTS Pursuant to paragraphs in original Appeal and in the interest of costs and court time are amended as follows:
9. Paragraph 3, the Plaintiff, Denise-Marie McIntosh, et. al., remains the same.
10. Plaintiff of Interest, is added: _______________
11. Paragraph 4, The Defendant, caller who made report or witness supporting claim, remains as a Defendant; his status is supported by his actions throughout the matter contrary to NH RSA 641 Falsifications in Official Matters.
12. Other named reporters who reported falsely with documentation to prove it.
13. Paragraph 6, The Defendant, Susan G. Vonderheide, Ph.D., remains as a Defendant; her status is supported by her actions throughout the matter contrary to NH RSA 641 Falsifications in Official Matters and acting under the color of law. This defendant/witness is also requested to be served a Subpoena duces tecum - "a writ issued by a court at the request of one of the parties to a suit; it requires a witness/defendant to bring to court … any relevant documents under the witnesses/defendants control". The Plaintiff is requesting all of her progress notes on sessions with CHILD from DATE to the date of the associated hearing to be produced directly to the Plaintiff 10 days prior to the Preliminary hearing, in line with Ross v. Gadwah, 131 NH 391.
14. Other name therapist who contributed to problems in case
15. Paragraph 7, The Defendant, Tracy Roukey, remains as a Defendant; her status is supported by her actions throughout the matter contrary to NH RSA 641 Falsifications in Official Matters, and/or acting under the color of law and/or being unqualified or incapable of conducting a proper investigation. This defendant/witness is also requested to be served a Subpoena duces tecum - the Plaintiff is requesting a copy of the protocols for her job at the time of the investigation, the reasons and dates of her demotion within the department and a copy of her video interview with the child, JV CASE NAME., for the purposes of having a competent expert witness review the content and protocols used, directly to the Plaintiff 10 days prior to the Preliminary hearing.
16. OTHER CPSW’S
17. Paragraph 10, The Defendant, Ellen McCormick, CASA remains as a Defendant; her status is supported by her acts done in her official character but not in line with her lawful authority, throughout the matter contrary to NH RSA 641 Falsifications in Official Matters, acting under the color of law and/or being unqualified or incapable of conducting a proper investigation. This defendant/witness is also requested to be served a Subpoena duces tecum - the Plaintiff is requesting a copy of all notes and the case file from the Nashua Visitation Center, which would only be released to a CASA or GAL, and a copy of all documentation of her evaluation or investigation in this matter, including who she spoke with regarding the case in line with Ross v. Gadwah, 131 NH 391, directly to the Plaintiff 10 days prior to the Preliminary hearing.
18. Other casa workers
19. Paragraph 16, The Defendant, Margaret A. Bishop remains as a Defendant; her status is supported by her acts or inactions through her official character but not in line with her lawful authority, throughout the matter contrary to NH RSA 641 Falsifications in Official Matters, acting under the color of law and/or being unqualified or incapable of ensuring the community of safe interactions with DCYF, through proper training, protocols and strict standards of performance. This defendant/witness is also requested to be served a Subpoena duces tecum - the Plaintiff is requesting a copy of all protocols, training to CPSW’s in this matter and her job details including but not limited to her conflicting appointment of overseeing and supervising the Administrative Appeals Unit, which appears to be a conflict of interest when the appeals are against her direct subordinates. Provide the states designed and operated TANF program, not limited to specific eligibility criteria that must be met to receive financial assistance payments and/or types of benefits and services, directly to the Plaintiff 10 days prior to the Preliminary hearing.
20. Paragraph 19, The Defendant, Matt Barrington, remains as a Defendant; his status is supported by his acts through his official character but not in line with his lawful authority, throughout the matter contrary to NH RSA 641 Falsifications in Official Matters, and/or acting under the color of law and/or being unqualified in providing requested documentation and acting in an ethical manner. This defendant/witness is also requested to be served Subpoena duces tecum - the Plaintiff is requesting a copy of all training materials for his position and identification of the procedures accounting of incoming and outgoing monies both federal and state and the identification/disclosures procedures to numerous payees on the same account, directly to the Plaintiff 10 days prior to the Preliminary hearing.
21. OTHER reimbursement department employees OR QUESTIONABLE BILLS WITHOUT FEDERAL REIMBURSMENT DEDUCTIONS.
22. Paragraph 21, The Defendant, Judge Thomas Bamberger remains as a Defendant; his status is supported by acts done in his official character in excess of his lawful authority, including but not limited to an abuse of discretion, inadequate pleadings, and acting under the color of law.
23. OTHER JUDGES WITH ORDERS THAT ARE NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AND/OR REQUIRED FURTHER LITIGATION TO UNDERSTAND THEIR MEANING
24. Paragraph 23, The Defendant, Marital Master Alice Spelas Love remains as a Defendant; her status is supported by acts done in her official character in excess of her lawful authority, including but not limited to an abuse of discretion, inadequate pleadings, acting under the color of law and Judge shopping for support of her recommendations.
25. OTHER MARITAL MASTER THAN HAD MORE THAN TWO JUDGE’S SIGN OFF ON THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND OR WHO DID NOT ORDER A SHOW CAUSE HEARING BEFORE BOUNDING OVER TO THE DISTRICT COURT.
26. The Plaintiff’s assertions of court procedure in the preceding paragraphs, by and through her De Novo appeal coupled with a request for a VOID judgment, jury demand and change of venue is also supported under Title 42 USC 1983 – which … Effectively made equitable relief available to those whose constitutional rights had been violated by an actor acting under State authority and the color of law depriving citizens of their constitutional rights.
27. Plaintiff under able to get a DE NOVO APPEAL UNDER NH RSA 169-C 28 when filed in a superior court.
28. The breach of duty, in this case gives rise to a jury demand because an equitable claim is joined by a legal claim. The equitable claim in this matter has two supporting factors, one is on the perceived right to recovery by the Reimbursement Unit in the 1st instance - compelling the court to follow standard rules of procedure under the NH RSA 169-C (De Novo Appeal – ANEW under the NH RSA 169-C not something else). The 2nd equitable factor for which the Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial based on the case as a whole, the importance of the acts, failure, breach, or violations that lie in the legal effect of the facts and circumstances, considered as a whole, and related to applicable law based on NH RSA 169-C and supporting civil and constitutional rights.
29. The NH RSA 169-C affords the Plaintiff a right to Appeal and Civil Rule 15 of the NH Superior Court Rules gives anyone the right to Intervention with standing- once a State affords that right, Griffin held, the State may not "bolt the door to equal justice," id. , at 24 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment). Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 16 (1956). The Plaintiff is entitled to a prompt refund of $180.00, and summons as requested should be sent out by the court.
30. The change of venue is just when weight is given to the number of Justices involved in the matter from the given appeal court, which do not serve justice when the Plaintiff’s are asserting that their Civil Rights have been grossly violated.
31. Lastly, Pro Se litigants may be entitled to Attorney fees and costs under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fee Award Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, as amended 42 USC 1988. Id. at 287-288. Section 1988's "chief purpose is to enable enforcement actions so that those whose rights are violated may obtain meaningful redress." Id The leading case on this issue showed:
The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in a Section 1983 action were entitled to nominal damages for the deprivation of their due process rights even without proof of actual injury. The Court explained that "[b]y making the deprivation of such rights actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury, the law recognizes the importance to organized society that those rights be scrupulously observed." Id. at 1053-54. See also Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English, 69 F.3d 920, 949 (9th Cir. 1995) (deprivation of redress under de novo appeal).
32. The actions of the court thus far are deterrence to the Plaintiff’s right to justice. Strict Scrutiny is applicable in this case, as shown throughout the Plaintiff’s pleadings.
The US Supreme Court has … long recognized that a parent's interests in the nurture, upbringing, companionship, care, and custody of children are generally protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g. ,Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390, 399, 401 (1923);Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 535 (1925); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651(1972); Wisconsin v.Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 232 (1972); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246, 255(1978); Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602 (1979); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 753(1982); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720 (1997). As we first acknowledged in Meyer, the right of parents to "bring up children," 262 U. S., at 399, and "to control the education of their own" is protected by the Constitution, id., at 401. See also Glucksberg, supra, at 761.

Had the court and named defendants followed proper procedures and acted in an ethical manner the review of this matter would have been solely based on the right to recovery. Instead, the review of the case must go back to the start of the matter and recognize the pattern of deceit to have this case heard in the first instance, entitling the Plaintiff’s to the relief requested.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court order:
A. Attach as an interested party as an additional Plaintiff’s to the Appeal referenced.
B. Will be attending structuring conference on 1/20/11 at 9am
C. Order a Trial by Jury as Demanded for both prayers A through H and Paragraph 29 of the original pleading of 12/16/10, to protect the public from further abuse of this nature, and compensate ALL the Plaintiff’s accordingly based on their constitutional rights to a jury, attachment under rule 15 as an interested party.
D. Recognize and grant the original Plaintiff’s request to Change Venue in paragraph 30 of the original pleading of 12/16/10, and in line with NH RSA 169-C:5 II.
E. Incorporate a list of procedural safe guards and an injunction against DHHS as warranted in this case to protect the public from future abuses.
F. Declare portions of NH RSA 169-C unconstitutional towards the protection of family rights specifically NH RSA 169-C:13 from a preponderance of the evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt see paragraph 40 of this amendment.
G. The Plaintiffs have incurred substantial expenses, including out of pocket expenses, in an effort to comply with obligations resulting directly from this matter since YEAR, including separation from THEIR child and child support payments based on fraud, payments for court ordered visitation, loss days from work. The damage to the Plaintiff and THEIR FAMILY right to their care may amount to a sum in excess of the Court’s maximum jurisdiction.
H. Absent a jury award and/or with a jury award, an award of nominal fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Act. Attorney Fees and nominal damages are right and just.
I. Grant such other relief as the court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
, Pro Se
Dated: PRIOR TO 1/20/10 ____________________
ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBERS
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that a copy of the ATTACHMENT HAS BEEN SENT TO________________________ In line with the portion of this matter under NH RSA 169-C:28 I.



AFFIDAVIT OF FACT AND TRUTH LAST PAGE




AFFIDAVIT OF FACT AND TRUTH



I ____________________________________swear (affirm) that:

· A. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I have fully disclosed and prepared all the information contained in the Cause of Action AND MY ATTACHMENT AS AN INTERESTED PARTY TO 226-2010-CV-00612 of 12/16/10 and Amendment of 12/18/10, based upon real facts supported with appropriate evidence to the same, with a right of action by different rules of law.
· B. I WILL include a financial affidavit, IF REQUESTED BY THE COURT
· C. The information contained in all documents submitted on the matter outlined in A. is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date __________________________Signature ______________________________

State of New Hampshire, County of Hillsborough. The person signing this financial affidavit

Appeared and signed this before me_______________________________and took oath that the

Statements set forth in this Amendment and referenced material as an Affidavit of FACT,
Are true to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. This instrument was acknowledged before

me ___________________________________ on ________________________________ my

Commission expires___________________________________: Affix seal, if any







Signature of Notarial Officer / Title_________________________________________________