Jean E. Allan
[REDACT]
[REDACT] NH [REDACT]
603-581-6183
November 18, 2010
Robert Libby, Esq.
c/o Bristol Police Department
Lake Street
Bristol, NH 03266
RE: Brady information
Dear Prosecutor Libby:
On November 9, 2010 I wrote the attached Motion for Reconsideration in re: Appeal of Jean Allan docket no. 09-E-0183. In that Motion, I have cited the issue of competency, or lack thereof as an issue that appears to pose a ‘conundrum’ to both the New Hampshire Court system, and to myself. The essence of the problem is the uncertainty of my legal capacity to stand pro se in the civil matters, since possibly the early 1990’s. And, additionally brings into question the legal status of all the contracts that I have signed, and that have been alleged that I have signed.
Additionally, I have recently read the NOVEMBER OVERSIGHT REPORT* November 16, 2010 Examining the Consequences of Mortgage Irregularities for Financial Stability and Foreclosure Mitigation *Submitted under Section 125(b)(1) of Title 1 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-343. In that report that has now been submitted to the US Senate Banking Committee, to be included into its recent hearings, several issues were raised that I have been citing in my defense, and that are material to this instant case.
What is becoming abundantly clear is that the defenses that I have cited against both Waukewan Holdings, as the alleged high bidder of the October 1989 alleged judgment that allegedly pledged the subject real property in Center Harbor as one of the assets securing the judgment, have also been raised in the above cited "Oversight Report" as general defenses against mortgage/foreclosure fraud.
For example, the "Oversight Report" stated that "failure to foreclose properly means that the homeowner may be able to assert claims against a subsequent owner of the property." In this instant case: Waukewan Holdings, LLC. And, most importantly, the "Oversight Report" stated that in order for a transfer, or assignment to take place under relevant portions of the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC], there are three requirements: 1) the buyer must give value; 2) an authenticated document of sale should describe the asset to be sold; and 3) the seller must have rights in the assets that is being sold – and this requires an unbroken chain of title.
Is should be clear to the State that if the entity that held the auction on September 27, 2007 had not been in compliance with UCC law, and other State and Federal laws, then the Jean E. Vorisek Trust, the property tax payer, of which I am sole Trustee, has a cause of action in civil court against both the seller and the alleged high bidder buyer at auction.
And, to compound the State’s problem, recently the spokesperson for the 50 AGs who are currently probing the mortgage/foreclosure fraud issue - that is the subject matter of the US Senate Banking Committee hearings for which the above cited "Oversight Report" was created, among other hearing, in the US House of Representatives – stated they "believe Robo Signing may constitute a deceptive act and/or unfair practice". One of the ‘uber’ Robo Signers that is now the subject matter of several court cases [see nhjustice.net Jean Allan’s letter to NH AG re: Victor Parisi] has been the subject of my civil court complaints dating back to 2005.
And, to further compound the problem that the State has with the charges that have been brought against me; the underlying document, the alleged Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with BankEast dated October 12, 1989, that is the alleged proof that is the backstop for Mr. Peter Minkow’s Affidavit claim, may not have been legally signed.
I have testified already that my signature was forged, but now due to the October 13, 2009 Report of the New Hampshire Forensic Examiner, and due to the claim that my alleged psychosis dated back to 1989, the document may not have been legally signed, even assuming arguendo, that I signed it at all.
Both the right to due process and the right to produce all favorable proofs are found in Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution. N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 15; see State v. Castle, 128 N.H. 649, 651, 517 A.2d 848, 849 (1986). It has been clear from the outset of all of my arrests that the State has taken Mr. Peter Minkow’s Affidavit of ownership as gospel truth, and that violates my due process rights.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has found that "defendant's due process claims under the State Constitution, we look to the principles of fundamental fairness. See State v. Symonds, 131 N.H. 532, 534, 556 A.2d 1175, 1177 (1989). "A fundamentally unfair adjudicatory procedure is one, for example, that gives a party a significant advantage or places a party in a position of prejudice or allows a party to reap the benefit of his own behavior in placing his opponent at an unmerited and misleading disadvantage." Id. (quotation omitted). Because the Federal Constitution offers the defendant no greater protection in these circumstances, see Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 765 (1987); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982), we need not conduct a separate federal analysis.
The Supreme Court has affirmatively recognized judicial authority to review prosecutorial charging decisions in two situations: when the decision to increase charges was vindictive, and when the government improperly selected the defendant based upon an impermissible classification. On May 11, 2010 the Laconia District Court issued an Order signed by Judge DeVries on May 5, 2010 that found me not competent based exclusively upon the findings of the New Hampshire Office of Forensic Examiner. That Order pursuant to New Hampshire State law would show that I lack the capacity to stand and control civil matters, and/or enter into civil contracts. The October 13, 2009 Report takes the narrative, and its findings all the way back in time to include 1989. Which raises the issue as to whether the State has examined the Office of Forensic Examiner in order to determine at what point in time, did I become psychotic? Was is from birth, or when?
Considering, the myriad of problems that exist at this time with the State’s case against me, my request would be that the State provide me with the answers to these questions and its other evidence to show that its reliance upon Mr. Peter Minkow’s Affidavit is legally placed, and if the State cannot do this: Immediately drop all charges with prejudice.
Sincerely,
Jean E.Allan aka Jean E.Allan Sovik, defendant
Cc: Clerk, Laconia District Court
Cc: NH AG Brooks
|
