4. Due Process - Historical turnaround In NH Court System

DMVC Productions: 4. Due Process - Historical turnaround In NH Court System:

4. Due Process - Historical turnaround In NH Court System

Use "Snark" definition included (see #1.), in your motion, as in the example below; and you will receive the fastest turnaround possibly ever in the NH Court System!! This motion  full copy in sec. "3. Due Process" was submitted to the Nashua Superior Court on Friday the 23rd of March 2012 just after 2:00pm date stamp on first page; just before 4:00pm that same day on a regular and not expedited motion it was ruled on allegedly by Justice Ryan somewhere within that 2 hour period before they close for the day and a weekend no less: (see document in #2) as shown on the 2nd page by his signature; where it also states cc: 3/26/12; and then on 3/26/12 as shown on the date stamp of the item being mailed; the motion and Justice's note were simply copied without a clerks note and deposited into the envelope and mailed. Now, that is historical diligence in the NH Court System


Read More:

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS Reversed WEST VIRGINIA: In re Ashton M.

AFRA_Newshawk : Message: Fwd: Case Summary:

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS 
WEST VIRGINIA: In re Ashton M. 
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the Circuit Court of Webster County’s order terminating appellant-mother’s parental rights, holding that the lower court failed to comply with the Rules of Procedure for Abuse and Neglect Proceedings by failing to schedule a dispositional hearing after rejecting the state’s case plan for the child and the lower court erred when it failed to take the child’s opinion into consideration before ordering the termination. Under In re Edward B., 210 W.Va. 621, the court held that a permanency plan can be implicitly rejected by the disposition of the court, triggering the Rule 34 requirement that the state submit a revised plan and for the court to hold a dispositional hearing. Here, the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) recommended termination of appellant’s custodial rights, but the lower court ultimately terminated appellant’s parental rights. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found the lower court’s actions to be an implicit rejection of the permanency plan and, accordingly, determined that the failure to hold an additional dispositional hearing was error. The court further found that, as the child was over the age of 14, W.Va. Code § 49-6-5(a) required her wishes to be considered, but the lower court did not do so. Accordingly, the court remanded to the lower court in order to comply with Rule 34 and consider child’s wishes if DHHR sought termination of parental rights in its revised plan. 
Cite: No. 11-0755, 2012 W.Va. LEXIS 97 (W.Va. Feb. 28, 2012)      
Link to Full Opinion

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS Reversed MISSOURI: W.S. v. Greene County Juvenile Office (In re: G.T.M.)

AFRA_Newshawk : Message: Fwd: Case Summary:

The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Division Two reversed the trial court’s judgment terminating appellant-father’s parental rights, finding that the trial court erred in holding that appellant-father had abandoned and neglected his child. Here, appellant-father learned of his paternity one month prior to the filing of the termination petition. After learning of his paternity, appellant-father sent the child age-appropriate letters and arranged for his relatives to care for the child until he was released from prison. The appellate court found that the two part test for termination of parental rights under both RSMo Cum. Stat. § 211.447.5(1) and § 211.447.5(2) was not applied properly. Because appellant-father had only learned of his paternity one month before the termination hearing, the six month requirement for abandonment could not be met. In addition, the appellate court found that because father had contacted the case worker to execute the treatment plan, the requirements for abandonment were also not met. Finally, the court held that there was no evidence that appellant-father had neglected the child as he had been in contact with the child and made living arrangements for her. Therefore, the court of appeals reversed the termination judgment. 
Cite: No. SD31470, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 264 (Mo. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2012)

Link to Full Opinion

ADOPTION/Rights of Unmarried Fathers ARKANSAS: In re Baby Boy B.

ADOPTION/Rights of Unmarried Fathers ARKANSAS: In re Baby Boy B. 

Cite as 2012 Ark. 92
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.  11-374
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION
OF BABY BOY B., A MINOR
Opinion Delivered  March 1, 2012
APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO.  PR 2010-431-2]
HON. MICHAEL A. MAGGIO
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice
Appellant J.E.M., biological father of Baby Boy B., appeals from a Faulkner County
Circuit Court order that determined that his consent to the adoption of Baby Boy B. was not
required pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-206(a)(2) (Repl. 2009).  Appellant
argues that the circuit court erred in finding that his consent to the adoption was not required,
by granting the decree of adoption in favor of appellees G.F.J. and S.L.J., and by finding that
Arkansas Code Annotated sections 9-9-206(a)(2) and 9-9-207(a)(11) do not violate the
Constitution of the United States.  Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court
Rule 1-2(a)(3) and (4) (2011), as the issues presented involve federal constitution interpretation
and are of significant public interest.  We reverse and remand.

Read More:


'via Blog this'

NH CACR 26 Must Now Pass the Senate

CACR 26 has passed both the Judiciary Committee and the NH House of Representatives. We're almost there. Now it MUST pass the Senate. Please contact the NH Senator's and tell them they MUST pass this BILL, the way it is written, without any changes. Please stress the fact that they MUST Support this Bill! The children and families of NH want their rights back!

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/senate_roster.aspx

CACR 26 – AS INTRODUCED

2012 SESSION

12-2423
06/09
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 26
RELATING TO: administration of the supreme court.
PROVIDING THAT: the article authorizing the chief justice of the supreme court to make rules governing the administration of all the courts of the state shall be repealed.
SPONSORS: Rep. Mirski, Graf 10; Rep. Sorg, Graf 3; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Winter, Merr 3; Rep. Balboni, Hills 21; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Rep. Lambert, Hills 27; Rep. Weyler, Rock 8; Rep. Brownrigg, Hills 27
COMMITTEE: Judiciary

ANALYSIS

This constitutional amendment concurrent resolution repeals the article that authorizes the chief justice of the supreme court to make rules governing the administration of the courts of the state.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
12-2423
06/09

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROPOSING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
RELATING TO: administration of the supreme court.
PROVIDING THAT: the article authorizing the chief justice of the supreme court to make rules governing the administration of all the courts of the state shall be repealed.

Be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, that the

Constitution of New Hampshire be amended as follows:

I. That article 73-a of the second part of the constitution, relative to authorizing the chief justice of the supreme court to make rules governing the administration of all the courts of the state, be repealed.
II. That the above amendment proposed to the constitution be submitted to the qualified voters of the state at the state general election to be held in November, 2012.
III. That the selectmen of all towns, cities, wards and places in the state are directed to insert in their warrants for the said 2012 election an article to the following effect: To decide whether the amendments of the constitution proposed by the 2012 session of the general court shall be approved.
IV. That the wording of the question put to the qualified voters shall be:
“Are you in favor of amending the second part of the constitution by repealing article 73-a, relative to authorizing the chief justice of the supreme court to make rules governing the administration of all the courts of the state.”
V. That the secretary of state shall print the question to be submitted on a separate ballot or on the same ballot with other constitutional questions. The ballot containing the question shall include 2 squares next to the question allowing the voter to vote “Yes” or “No.” If no cross is made in either of the squares, the ballot shall not be counted on the question. The outside of the ballot shall be the same as the regular official ballot except that the words “Questions Relating to Constitutional Amendments proposed by the 2012 General Court” shall be printed in bold type at the top of the ballot.
VI. That if the proposed amendment is approved by 2/3 of those voting on the amendment, it becomes effective when the governor proclaims its adoption.

NH HB 1194 Must Pass

NH HB 1194 Must Pass

Please contact the NH Legislature and tell them they MUST pass this Bill.

The last sentence was never submitted to the people for a vote and was never approved by the people. Since there was no such vote by the people, this sentence was attached to Article 73-a in error.  According to the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part II, Article 99, in effect at the time; only by a supermajority vote of the people can the constitution be changed. The people however did not vote on the last sentence in Article 73-a, therefore that addition was an error. Since it is an error, an error of this nature can be removed from the article by a simple majority vote of the legislature.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/memberlookup.aspx

HB 1194 – AS INTRODUCED

2012 SESSION

12-2794
10/01
HOUSE BILL 1194
AN ACT relative to the text of Article 73-a of Part II of the New Hampshire Constitution.
SPONSORS: Rep. Kingsbury, Belk 4
COMMITTEE: Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification

ANALYSIS

This bill authorizes the removal of the last sentence of Article 73-a of Part II of the New Hampshire Constitution by the secretary of state.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
12-2794
10/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve

AN ACT relative to the text of Article 73-a of Part II of the New Hampshire Constitution.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Findings of the Legislature. The approval of ballot question 4 at the state general election of 1978 inserted Article 73-a in Part II of the New Hampshire Constitution. However, the text enrolled as Article 73-a included as the last sentence of the article: “The rules so promulgated shall have the force and effect of law.” This last sentence was never submitted to the people for a vote and was never approved by the people. Since there was no such vote by the people, this sentence was attached to Article 73-a in error. According to the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part II, Article 99, in effect at the time; only by a supermajority vote of the people can the constitution be changed. The people however did not vote on the last sentence in Article 73-a, therefore that addition was an error. Since it is an error, an error of this nature can be removed from the article by a simple majority vote of the legislature.
2 Secretary of State So Directed. The secretary of state, as the keeper of the records of the state and the holder of the enrolled Constitution of the state of New Hampshire, is hereby directed to correct the text of Article 73-a or Part II of the New Hampshire Constitution to read as follows, so as to its adoption at the 1978 state general election:
[Art.] 73-a. [Supreme Court, Administration.] The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of all the courts. He shall, with the concurrence of a majority of the supreme court justices, make rules governing the administration of all courts in the state and the practice and procedure to be followed in all such courts.
3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.

“State being sued for six million dollars for identity theft”

CONTACT:  Leisha Tringali,

Telephone:  (603) 893-9333

e-mail: loop_hole_justice@yahoo.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

                        “State being sued for six million dollars for identity theft”

On Thursday, March 27,Leisha Tringali, a pro se litigant filed a federal complaint against state agencies within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Ms. Tringali has brought action against multiple state agencies by claim of identity theft in the sum of six million dollars.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the State of New Hampshire where Ms. Tringali resides.

The lawsuit alleges that the Department of Revenue – Child Enforcement Agency without the express authorization of Ms. Tringali transferred her personal identifying information to obtain child support payments under a synthetic identity created by the Department of Transitional Assistance.

Ms. Tringali explains that she was never notified by the  Department of Revenue – Child Enforcement Agency of any court hearings.

Ms. Tringali states that “General Laws that empower any state agency to deny the exercise of a fundamental civil right such as due process can’t possibly stand up under constitutional scrutiny” and is why she has decided to file suit.

Ms. Tringali states “In cases where judges could legitimately claim judicial immunity, other players who willingly align themselves with the state actors and reach a “meeting of the minds” with them in order to accomplish some ulterior purpose, can be held liable while having no right to claim any kind of immunity whatsoever”.

                                                                                      #END#