PETITION 14
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE
TO: The Honorable House of Representatives
FROM: Petitioner Representative Daniel C. Itse, Rockingham 9
DATE: August 16, 2011
SUBJECT: Grievance of Jeanette Dionne
Your Petitioner Representative Itse on behalf of Jeanette Dionne hereinafter presents the following summary of her grievance and invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable House of Representatives pursuant to Articles 31 and 32 to bring about redress:
Grievance involving the Brentwood Family Court for allowing a motion for pre-contempt which does not exist.
Grievance involving Marital Master Pam Kelly for holding a hearing without the statutory notice.
Grievance involving Brentwood Family Court Clerk for failing to provide statutory notice of a hearing.
Grievance involving Guardian ad Litem, Attorney Lynn Abbey for not disclosing and intentionally misrepresenting her relationship to the father of Jeanette Dionne's children multiple occasions of perjury in Case 2005-M-0532.
Grievance involving Judge Maher for allowing perjury.
Grievance involving Master Luneau for allowing perjury.
Grievance involving the Judicial Conduct Committee "We do not oversee Judges that do not follow the laws."
Grievance involving the Professional Conduct Committee for failing to hold Guardian ad Litem Attorney Lynn Abbey accountable for multiple ethics violations.
Wherefore, your Petitioner prays that the House of Representatives consider this proposed remedy:
1. Amend the laws of the State so that individuals can be held criminally liable for not recusing themselves from matters before the court when there are conflicts of interest that may materially affect the outcome.
2. Amend the laws of the State so that permitting perjury in judicial proceedings is official oppression.
Respectfully submitted by Petitioner Representative Itse on Behalf of Jeanette Dionne.
This petition was filed once already: in 2009 and 2010 a number of House Petitions were filed even though there was no committee in place to hear them. An ad-hoc redress caucus was formed to hear some of them, and two of the petitions led to a set of unsuccessful Bill of Address hearings.
In both 2010 and 2011, the complaint has been aimed primarily at a certain "Guardian ad Litem, Attorney Lynn Abbey." Strictly speaking, there is no such person. There is however, a GAL named Lynn Aaby, the very first GAL listed in the official directory. Ms. Aaby is also an attorney. I can't fault Legislative Services or the Rules Committee for not catching this error, but I still wonder how the hell the name could be spelled wrong twice. The sponsor and/or the Majority Caucus office doubtless could have caught this mistake had they bothered to do even the most casual quality control before re-filing the petition. Even the first time around, notwithstanding Ms Dionne's belief that her adversary was named "Lynn Abbey," there must have been ample available documentation showing that her name was in fact "Lynn Aaby."
It's not as if they just changed the date the second time around. They did a lot of work on it, naming many additional officials on the new version of the petition.
That's my first gripe.
My second gripe is that at least one of the proposed remedies happens to be both absurd and unnecessary. Perjury and suborning perjury are both felonies: it is pointless to make "permitting perjury in judicial proceedings" be "official oppression" (which is just a misdemeanor.)
|
