Witness Tampering/Retaliation and The Hobbs Act

RE: NEW HAMPSHIRE’S DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, OFFICE OF FORENSIC EXAMINER’S (OCTOBER 13, 2009 FORENSIC EVALUATION REPORT) (hereinafter "REPORT")

NOTE: If you are a new Reader of this series "NO WITNESS = NO CASE", you may want to begin with reading the nine prior installments before you read this one. The main objective of this Series of Installments is to lay out DEFENDANT’s rebuttal argument, and "Affirmative Defenses" to the State’s REPORT "Testimony" that was faxed to the Laconia District Court [LDC] in re: 09-cr-1293-4 minutes prior to the hearing on the merits of the May 15-16, 2009 arrests in re: 1293-94 (in both cases the DEFENDANT is charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass). In re: 1293-94 the misdemeanor was an "A" classification, which entitled her to a Public Defender attorney. In re: 4147 the charges were classified a "B" and therefore the DEFENDANT had to defend herself, pro se. The REPORT "Testimony" was also submitted to the court in re: 09-E-4147, whose charges and the subsequent arrests of the DEFENDANT occurred after the Belknap County Superior Court ORDER that GRANTED DEFENDANT’s MOTION for a Temporary Restraining Order against Waukewan Holdings, LLC.

Serial Readers, by now, most likely have a good idea whether DEFENDANT’s testimony as laid out in the Series of Installments to date, would have been "meritorious" if given a full and fair hearing in a court of law. And, Serial Readers will most likely agree that "but for" the State’s Report that quashed DEFENDANT’s due process rights to a ‘full and fair’ hearing, the issues that have been raised herein could have already been resolved. But, what could have been the incentives of certain State’s agents to act they way they did? Installments #6 and #7 raise serious issues surrounding the State’s actions. This Installment will take the exploration of those issues one step further. This Installment will lay out the argument, and posit that the acts of certain of the State’s agents were incentivized for the purpose of "Retaliation"; and, in order to succeed, they needed to further act to "Tamper" with DEFENDANT’s ability to testify: NO WITNESS = NO CASE. These acts, if proven, would have been done in violation of the USC Title 18: sections 1512-1513; and, section 1951 The Hobbs Act. In order for the Readers to be able to develop an informed opinion of DEFENDANT’s argument, the relevant laws have been hyperlinked below:

So, the first test of DEFENDANT’s argument is: Whether there have been any "principals" named by her that have also been named as associated with ongoing criminal organizations. Since, DEFENDANT’s argument is one of rebuttal to REPORT’s "expert testimony" to LDC, how did the State present this issue to the LDC in its October 13, 2009 REPORT?

The State, by incorporating 6) and 9) into its Sources of Information section, has freely admitted to the LDC (and to the public as of October 13, 2009) that it was fully aware of DEFENDANT’s role in testifying for the Organized Crime Task Force in re: USA v Rennert, in March 1997. The State, by and through its Sources of Information section, also freely admitted to the both the LDC and to the public, that it was fully aware of the events that succeeded DEFENDANT’s March 1997 testimony. The State could have Googled the names highlighted in (blue) above, and found that they all have been associated with ongoing criminal organizations, at that time.

In the bullet points below the Readers’ will know what the State "knew" (when its agents authorized its REPORT, to be faxed to the LDC, and introduced into evidence, by Prosecutor Robert Libby). The REPORT is clear. The State was fully aware on October 13, 2009 of DEFENDANT’s reported concerns that she had been and, was still being, 'Retaliated' against for: (1) Her complaint against Gene Phillips/First Equity Insurance/Alan Teale Ponzi scheme [click HERE for Installment #2]: And, her testimony (in March 1997) in re: USA v Rennert matter as a witness for the prosecution against members associated with organized crime; and (2) Her role in the discovery of Blondheim Ponzi Scheme; Below in quotes are some of the issues that the State "knew" DEFENDANT had complained about:

1) Beginning on page 10 Sources of Information 6, incorporated into State’s REPORT "Testimony" the State informed the LDC that DEFENDANT had written a section that was titled Post USA v Rennert Testimony Events – 1997. Her complaint against Gene Phillips/First Equity Insurance/Alan Teale Ponzi Scheme. To wit:

Let’s assume for the moment that DEFENDANT’s statements made in the January 9, 2009 letter to OIGs of US DOJ and SEC were true. (Considering the OIG USDOJ’s August 21, 2009 referral email, there must have been some kernel of truth to it, or the referral would not have been made.) But, that is for the Readers to determine. The first question is: "Whether the State could have confirmed any of the DEFENDANT’s statements with second or third parties, or by public record?" The answer to this question is YES! Assuming that certain agents of the State had the incentive to do its own due diligence. Nevertheless, the DEFENDANT was prepared to introduce her ‘affirmative defense’ arguments, to include arguments of law and fact, at a full and fair trial on October 13, 2009, but she was denied that opportunity. The LDC accepted the State’s REPORT "expert testimony" at face value. No cross examination was allowed, in direct contradiction to the State’s own laws.

So, another follow up question here would be: Whether the State’s agents, in October 13, 2009, had already been compromised with their prior actions of support with respect to the alleged "Retaliation" charges that had been reported by DEFENDANT, in her ‘case study’ letter to the OIGs of US DOJ and SEC? Here are some of the State’s "expert testimony" with respect to DEFENDANT’s reports of "Retaliation". The Readers’ may get some indication of the State’s predisposition after reading the bulleted statements incorporated into State’s REPORT.

2) Beginning on page 2 Sources of Information 6, Defendant explained to the OIGs of the USDOJ and SEC how she became to be involved, and ultimately caused the ‘whistle to be blown’ on the Ponzi Scheme, known as Blondheim.

On page 4 of its REPORT the State provided its "expert testimony" with respect to DEFENDANT’s reported concerns that "This case study is a cautionary tale for all "whistle-blowers". The State, instead of going to the public records or court files with respect to USA v David Williams (the General Partner of Blondheim Ponzi schemers), it attributed the above comments as being the DEFENDANT’s "delusions" and consistently used the words "she maintains". The State’s "expert testimony" gave its excuse for it’s non diligence with its statement below:

Serial Readers will recall the "I smell a rat test". The State’s above REPORT "expert testimony" to the LDC on October 13, 2009, with excuse for not doing its own due diligence; clearly does not pass. But why would the State’ agents go to such lengths to prevent DEFENDANT from presenting her ‘affirmative defenses’, and perhaps risk becoming enmeshed in a USC Title 18 Sections 1513 1512 1951 violations investigation? Only those "certain" State agents can testify to their own acts and motivational incentives. Perhaps some day they will get that opportunity, under oath.

Until such day: "Enquiring" minds may wonder. And, although we may still be "naïve" (as the State has charged) we trust and believe that there are some investigators (yet) who will uphold their sworn duty, and investigate, at the very least, the answers to the questions posited below:

What was the incentive for certain agents of the State of New Hampshire to contact a sitting US District Court Judge with the request that New Hampshire take jurisdiction over the September 11, 1997 sabotage of the main production bore hole and surrounding monitoring wells located at the High Birches Springs property in North Woodstock, NH? And, then not supervise the investigation that they claimed was in the public interest of the State to pursue?
What was the incentive for certain agents of the State of New Hampshire to publicly declare that DEFENDANT was the prime suspect of the 9/11 Sabotage of the High Birches Springs water source?
What was the incentive for certain agents of the State of New Hampshire Office of Attorney General to terminate any investigation, if any, of the 9/11 Sabotage of the High Birches Springs water source, once it gained jurisdiction?
What was the incentive for certain agents of the State of New Hampshire to influence the Boston Office of the USEPA to terminate the ongoing investigation of US EPA investigator Duane Sims of the 9/11 Sabotage of the High Birches Springs water source?
What was the incentive for certain agents of the State of New Hampshire Office of Attorney General and Department of Environmental Services to allow Martha HW Crowninshield to control the clean-up efforts, which were caused by the 9/11 Sabotage of the High Birches Springs water source?
What was the incentive for certain agents of the State of New Hampshire to accept a $100,000 payment from Martha HW Crowninshield?
What was the incentive for certain agents of the New Hampshire Banking Department to make the findings that they did with respect to DEFENDANT’s, among others, complaints in re: SN Servicing Corporation, Inc. et al and Laconia Savings Bank?
What were the incentives for certain members of the Judicial Conduct Committee, and the Professional Ethics Committees to make the determinations that they did with respect to DEFENDANT’s filed "grievances"?
What was the incentive for certain agents of the State of New Hampshire Department of Corrections Office of Forensic Examiners to authorize, fax, and introduce into evidence the October 13, 2009 REPORT, in re: the above cited criminal cases?
What was the incentive for the Commissioners of the respective New Hampshire Boards of Medicine and Mental Health to take no affirmative action with respect to DEFENDANT’s filed "grievances"?
What was the incentive for certain agents of New Hampshire’s law enforcement to arrest DEFENDANT?
What was the incentive for New Hampshire State Prosecutor Robert Libby to pursue the above cited charges against the DEFENDANT?
What was the incentive for certain New Hampshire judges to make the decisions that they Ordered with respect to DEFENDANT’s civil and criminal matters?
What was the incentive for certain State of New Hampshire correction officers to book DEFENDANT using her Panamanian birth name of Jean Elizabeth Allan Sovik, and then deny her access to a lawyer in violation of the 1963 Vienna Treaty? And, then mistreat her while in custody for two days waiting for her arraignment?

Installment #6 raised the issue: Whether the State had clean hands, and wanted to "Do Justice"? This Installment ends with the above questions, that DEFENDANT was prepared to raise, and to offer some answers with her ‘affirmative defense"; but, as the Readers will recall, the State may have already tipped its hand to the LDC, with respect to the issue of its hygienic (or not) hands when it worried that:

"She therefore is essentially looking to use the proceedings as a forum to put to trial her entire delusional thesis. A trial for her will involve attempting to get even more data to understand the alleged conspiracy better, with more investigation and unearthing of detail to prove the conspiratorial links still left uncompleted and/or which she had yet to convince a Court about thus far".

One could interpret the State’s above "expert testimony" to be that, if the true motivations, or incentives of certain agents of the State of New Hampshire’s were to be discovered, then those certain agents may have to pay the penalties as laid out above in USC Title 18: sections 1512 1513 and 1951 The Hobbs Act. So, let’s make certain that the lid stays on "Pandora's Box", and ORDER DEFENDANT "Not Competent".

Installment #11will be dedicated solely to "A Daughter's Promise".