“They keep on dragging me back in…” Last week, I reported here (“Night Cap: DCYF Court Case Got “Judge Canceled””) that “the Judge” canceled DCYF:
Yes, I am still in “semi-retirement” and not writing much, having to take care of TMEW, the Grandson, and the Granddaughter’s needs in a variety of very time-consuming ways. However, I am quite happy to report that one of “Life’s familial responsibilities” has just come to a good end:
Case DISMISSED – So Ordered
And my thought then was, “That was that.” But as we have seen more and more, when the Government gets snotty and has the Power to make you miserable, EVEN WHEN YOU’VE BEEN PROVEN RIGHT (or, in this case, innocent) and has a “hair across,” it will strive to multiply that miserableness.
DCYF is going to take a THIRD bite at the apple.
I got the call from my son stating that after DCYF’s case against him for abuse was thrown, and the “lesser” charge of Neglect was dismissed, DCYF is going to “join him” into the Daughter-in-law’s case that was already decided, shoving him into that case AFTER the Judge’s decision to apply the same penalties because “He is still considered a household member.”
Translation: “The judicial system found you innocent twice, but WE will have our revenge.” Rules? Who needs any stinkin’ rules? The message, IMHO, is, “We expect parents to simply bend over and lay down, and if you don’t…” HOW MANY OTHER TIMES HAS DCYF USED THIS TACTIC??
Why not – how many Parents have the resources to fight them knowing that, worst case, their kids will be adopted out and they’ll never see them again? How many Parents are willing to risk that outcome? And as far as the child is concerned, DCYF is always talking about the wrongness of induced Trauma…how’s that gonna work in that worst case?
The DCYF case manager sent along their “Social Study” form, declaring that he now has to fill it out.
Again…Double Jeopardy? Or Triple…
As one would guess, I was a bit miffed at the reaction of the Government being kicked to the curb and then deciding to kick the reason why they got kicked (er, the Eldest). So, do you think I remained stoic, silently standing on the sidelines, gazing off and contemplating now-snow-capped Mt. Washington, believing, “well, that’s the system we have brought upon ourselves?”
I know, trick question (smirk!). Here’s what I returned after I saw the actual email thread:
—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To <redacted as I know the case manager was TOLD to do this – the responsible people are further up the food chain>
Cc The Eldest
Date 12/8/2023 8:43:02 AM
Subject Re: Fwd: Social Study for <the Eldest>
Oh, so now we’re going to do the “tell the prisoner to put the noose on by himself and then pull the lever bit“?
My next RTK series will just about write itself.
-Skip
And so I got to work – first salvo:
—— Original Message ——
From “Skip” <Skip@granitegrok.com>
To “Cooney-Bilodeau, Stacey” <stacey.a.cooneybilodeau@dhhs.nh.gov>; “Donovan, Maygan” <Maygan.C.Donovan@dhhs.nh.gov>
Cc “Daniel Murphy” <necrone1985@gmail.com>
Date 12/8/2023 10:01:15 AM
Subject Re[2]: Fwd: Social Study for DanDCYF attempted to prosecute Dan on Abuse charges. That was dropped
DCYF then attempted to join Dan to Sarah’s case – that was thrown out
DCYF failed to prove its latest case, that of Neglect, due to the insufficiency of the evidence.
DCYF wants to replay #2?
NH Constitution, Part 1 Article 16:[Art.] 16. [Former Jeopardy; Jury Trial in Capital Cases.] No subject shall be liable to be tried, after an acquittal, for the same crime or offense…
Read that again, just to be clear.
Please also find attached my next RSA 91:A demand aimed at DCYF. It should be rather easy to fulfill.
I was going to strictly focus on SAU7 for a while as I started off with some easy ones for Jennifer Noyes (SpecEd Director) yesterday. Now my gaze will turn back towards the Division ahead of schedule instead.
To be continued…
-Skip
Heh!
Sidenote: Jennifer Noyes is the Special Ed director of the Colebrook School District. I’ll be blunt – I believe, like in other rumors of Districts dropping dimes on “too-interested-and-uppity” parents to DCYF, that’s what’s happened here. I’ll be writing about those Right To Knows later.
Here’s the Right To Know I sent to DCYF in its entirety:
December 8, 2023
Right to Know Request per RSA-91A: Double Jeopardy
To repeat the responsibilities of NH Government workers and Citizens:
[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive…The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government…
and a further proviso to protect the Rights and Liberties of innocents from an overbearing and overreaching Government that seeks retribution against a single citizen:
[Art.] 16. [Former Jeopardy…] No subject shall be liable to be tried, after an acquittal, for the same crime or offense…
Demand:
Pursuant to the Right to Know Law (RSA. 91-A), I am demanding access, within 5 business days, to the following Governmental Records for the Division of:
- The name and title of the Division of Children, Youth and Family Services (“DCYF”) employee(s) either making or assisting in this second decision to join the Eldest to the Daughter-in-law’s Neglect case after:
- Judge <redacted> DISMISSED the FIRST “Join” petition by DCYF
- Judge <redacted> ordered that the Neglect case brought by DCYF against Daniel was to be DISMISSED.
- Provide any and all communications related to this decision regardless of the mode of communications (e.g., email, voice mails, notes, phone texts but not to exclude other modes)
- Names of the communicants
- Titles of the communicants
- Date(s) of the communications
Note: If any such communications would fall into realm of RSA 91-A 5, XII exemptions (“Records protected under the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine ), redact such privileged text but still provide (re: my precedent setting Right To Know that ended up with DHHS Deputy Legal Counsel John B. Martin):
And to hammer the point home in this Dillon’s Rule State in which subdivisions of the State MUST be explicitly delegated the Power to do ANYTHING by an Act of the State Legislature:
- State any RSA(s) that allows DCYF to override the Article 16’s Constitutional authority to bring a second action against Daniel after the failure of DCYF’s first “Join” petition.
- State any DCYF regulation that overrides any such RSA(s) or Article 16’s “safe harbor” protections against employing a mere subdivision of the State attempted preemption “double jeopardy” protections.
To that latter point – I want to see if DCYF has decided to give itself such Powers just School Boards, vis Policies on Transgenders, give themselves the ability to subvert the First Amendment and Article 22 (both dealing with Free Speech) to ignore the Right to be Free from Double Jeopardy.
If this cannot be fulfilled within that 5 business day mandated window per RSA 91-A:2, II, please advise when the Responsive Record(s) will be made available.
Per RSA 91-A:4 IV(c) If you deny any portion of this request, please cite the specific exemption (see RSA 91-A:5 – the ONLY enumerated exemptions allowed by RSA 91-A) used to justify the denial to make each record, or part thereof, available for inspection along with a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the information withheld.
Additional: It is not up to the Requester to be made to look up the subjects or materials that are the focus of this Right To Know (e.g., from the Respondent: “here’s the URL so do the search yourself”). It is the responsibility of the Respondent to fully supply all demanded materials.
As you are aware, in 2016, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that a governmental body in possession of Responsive Records is required to produce them in electronic media using standard common file formats: Green v. SAU #55, 168 N.H. 796, 801 (2016). Unless there is some reason that it is not reasonably practical to produce such, explain why it is not practical to comply.
Please also note, per RSA 91-A:4 III, III-a, and III-b, you are required to maintain the safety and accessibility of such Responsive Records. This also includes such responsive records (e.g., emails, query files, policies) which may have been deleted from respective local hardcopy or software systems but are still available on the applicable servers or in application or archival system(s) either in-house or hosted.
Please let me know when these records are available for inspection or you may email the records to me at Skip@GraniteGrok.com. If the volume is turns out to be substantial, I’ll be happy to supply a shared DropBox folder sufficient to hold all of the Responsive Records.
Thank you for your lawful attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Skip Murphy
GraniteGrok.com
As I am writing this on Tuesday, the five business day limit has not yet been reached, nor upon this being published.
To be continued…
