THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


LACONIA DISTRICT COURT BELKNAP COUNTY


STATE V JEAN ALLAN


DOCKET # 09-CR-4147


PETTION TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ROBERT J MAC LEOD, DHA, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FORENSIC EXAMINIER, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS AS DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND TO APPEAR PERSONALLY AS WITNESS TO TESTIFY IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR/SUPERVISOR RSPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPETENCY REPORT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF FORENSIC EXAMINERS ON OCTOBER 13, 2009, AND THAT IS MATERIAL TO THE RESTORATION HEARING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 20, 2010

NOW COMES, Jean E. Allan aka Allan Sovik, [fka Jean E. Quinn, Jean E. Vorisek and Jean E. Vorisek Quinn], pro se defendant, in re the above captioned matter, and in further support of this Petition states as follows:

  1. This Petition to request a Subpoena Duces Tecum upon Robert J. Mac Leod, DHA, Director, Office of Forensic Examiner, State of New Hampshire to be issued pursuant to NH Rev. 516, and any other applicable State law or Court Rules.
  2. This Petition is consistent with the testimony of the October 6, 2010 procedural hearing to include the Courts finding that defendant’s constitutional rights of due process allow such a hearing; and, further that defendant is well within her rights to file this Petition for subpoena duces tecum upon the New Hampshire Director/Supervisor of the Office of Forensic Examiners that authorized the report to be used in the above captioned matter.
  3. The general purpose and scope of this Petition incorporates all the defendant’s rights in discovery in preparation of the now scheduled restoration hearing on December 20, 2010; and, further extends into the issue as to whether the New Hampshire Office of Forensic Examiners, by faxing the document [here after known as "Oct 13, 2009 Report"] addressed to Patricia Paquette, Clerk, Laconia District Court fax number 603-271-7458 at 12:26 pm on October 13, 2009 with an intent to commit fraud upon the Court; and, whether by allowing the Oct 13, 2009 Report to be used at the May 5, 2010 trial whereby the Court, citing the Oct 13, 2009 Report, found defendant "not competent", and for other related issues of fraud yet to be discovered that combined have violated defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights.
  4. This Petition requests that the Court Command Robert J Mac Leod to produce all documentary material and other tangible evidence as described herein that is the possession, custody or control, or in the possession custody or control of agents or employees, of the New Hampshire Office of Forensic Examiners, and to make same available for inspection and copying and reproduction before defendant on November 5, 2010 @ 9:00 AM; at the location of the Office of New Hampshire Forensic Examiner, 105 Pleasant Street, Concord, NH.
  5. The defendant Petitioner requests that the Court issue the following definitions and instruction to accompany its Command:
    1. That it extends to any of the respondent’s agents and employees by the Office of Forensic Examiners: currently employed, formerly employed, or deceased.
    2. That unless otherwise indicated documents to be produced pursuant to this subpoena should include all original documents prepared, sent, dated, received, in effect, or which otherwise came into existence at any time and that contain the subject matter of defendant Allan aka Allan Sovik, fka Jean E. Vorisek, Jean E. Quinn, Jean E. Vorisek Quinn, and to include specifically, the investigation of the sabotage of the property owned by Senter Cove Development Company, Inc. aka High Birches Springs, located on Route 3 No. Woodstock, NH; and any other prior related events involving the defendant. If all Respondent’s office has is a photo copy, then it should be produced as if it were an ‘original’.
    3. That the Subpoena Duces Tecum should call for the production of all responsive documents in the possession, custody, or control of the Office of Forensic Examiner without regard to the physical location of said documents; and, to include the identity of those with whom the responsive documents were shared.
    4. That in the event the Respondent seeks to claim that he may withhold any document on the basis that it is properly entitled to some privilege or limitation, please provide the following information:
      1. A list of each document for which Respondent believes a limitation exists;
      2. The name of each author, writer, sender or initiator of such documents or thing, if any;
      3. The date of such document, if any or an estimate thereof so indicated if no date appears on the document;
      4. The general subject matter as described in such document, or if no such description appears, then such other description sufficient to indentify said document.
      5. The claimed grounds for withholding the document, including but not limited to, the nature of the claim of privilege and grounds in support thereof.
    5. That is the Respondent possesses control or custody of no documents responsive to any of the numbered requests set forth herein, state this fact in the Response to said Petition.
    6. That for the purposes of responding to this subpoena the term ‘document’ shall mean all writings or stored data or information of any kind, in any form, including the originals and all non identical copies, whether different from the originals by reason of any notation[s] made or such copies or otherwise including without limitation: correspondence, notes, letters, telegrams, minutes, certificates, diplomas, contracts, copies of emails, inter-office communications, and all communications with other State Offices, in specific Office of the Attorney General, notations of any type of conversations, meetings, telephone or other communications, audio and videotapes, electronic mechanical or electrical records or representations of any kind [including without limitation tapes, cassettes, discs, magnetic tapes hard drives and recordings – to include each document translated into English.
    7. That unless otherwise specified the pertinent time period is the first date in which defendant became known, identified, recognized or referred to the New Hampshire Office of Forensic Examiners to include the current date of this subpoena.
    8. That Respondent is Commanded to produce the identity of all those State agents, and or employees, or independent, or sub-contractors, or individuals who had knowledge of the contents of the responsive documents as described herein at any time in the expansive time period that either he personally has knowledge of, or that the Office documents show.
    9. And, for all other relief that is just and mete.

Respectfully Submitted:

Jean E. Allan aka Jean E. Allan Sovik October 15, 2010

Address: [REDACT] (cell) 603-581-6183

CERTIFCATION OF DELIVERY

I, Jean E. Allan aka Allan Sovik , do hereby certify that on this 15th Day of October, 2010, I sent via priority mail delivery confirmation a true copy of this Petition to State Prosecutor Robert Libby, c/o Bristol Police Department, Bristol, NH 03266.

[This Page Last Updated on October 17, 2010]