I have written several articles labeling the judicial-legal system as one that operates on connections: it’s about who you know, not what you know. A recent article on GraniteGrok by Andrew Cline, titled “Rising Up, Not Against Institutions, but Elitism,” highlights that citizens are not opposed to institutions themselves but rather to the elitism represented by those institutions. This perspective resonates with me, as it seems the courts are deeply entrenched in politics, catering to the privileged and powerful rather than adjudicating based on legal principles. Citizens often find themselves sidelined in this elite judicial system.
New Hampshire needs qualified attorneys representing civil matters critical to our constitutional rights. An excellent illustration of this need is the New Hampshire right-to-know law, as protected under Part I, Article 8 of the NH Bill of Rights. This area of law often lacks sufficient coverage from attorneys. While organizations like the ACLU and media attorneys may engage in record disputes for significant clients, average citizens working to uncover government corruption in their municipalities are largely left to fend for themselves.
Having been involved with the court system for nearly four years, I have gained insights into why this situation persists. The courts have made these suits prohibitively expensive, with legal representation for essential records requests exceeding $100,000. Most attorneys recognize that these exorbitant fees effectively exclude the average citizen from participation. Municipalities, armed with vast tax dollars, can afford to fight these cases, while judges often show bias toward the state and local governments. This creates an elitist environment where only affluent citizens can challenge denials of records. Allowing constitutional rights to apply only to the wealthy is a fundamental injustice. The courts’ failure to prioritize these cases and establish clear ground rules supports this outcome, resulting in delays that favor municipalities. Even when municipalities lose, they win by prolonging the process.
New Hampshire’s judicial legal system favors privileged male judges and attorneys who hold positions of power and dictate the cases heard. Judges have exhibited a concerning lack of honor, ethics, and morals and appear corrupted in aligning themselves with municipal leaders and legal offices. This results in chaos surrounding records requests rather than promoting a swift resolution through the proper rules of Civil Procedure.
Justice is not impartial; it is political. The justice system, which exists to serve citizens, has relinquished its responsibilities in favor of catering to the political interests of those in power. Elite attorneys appear to collude with influential judges disregarding matters of fact and the rule of law. The vague and inconsistent application of judicial discretion permits the foundational legal basis for rulings to become blurred.
Nashua has spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars hiring law firms with attorneys who carry significant reputations. The City benefits from the established connections of influential men. In my case, the judge overlooked due process and the rules as he rolled out the red carpet for former Attorney General Joe Foster and retired attorney Russell Hilliard to take control of a case. The City assembled five attorneys against one pro se litigant, who was merely trying to understand why public meetings and their minutes were not properly noticed and recorded in compliance with the law. These meetings involved programs that cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. Citizens have the right to know what their government is doing by having these meetings properly noticed and recorded, especially concerning the spending of public funds.
Undoubtedly, the judge breathed a sigh of relief when well-connected, influential attorneys stepped into his courtroom. He likely thought and encouraged the Defendants to, “Get this woman out of my Court!” He was more than happy to surrender his authority to City-paid attorneys, permitting them to disregard rules in the process.
Spending virtually all my time under the control of one dishonorable judge has taught me little about the rules of the Court and proper proceedings. His arbitrary use of discretion and ineffective communication about the process created confusion, making it almost impossible for me to succeed. I no longer believe that any court wins granted to me were truly earned. Instead, it feels like a game where the objective is to placate me so I leave the courtroom. The court shows no intention of addressing credibility, upholding a citizen’s right to due process, or issuing orders to ensure transparency for citizens. Furthermore, the City has no intention, nor has it had any, to make changes to its open records policy.
In 2023, when the court issued an order urging the City to establish clear and uniform policies and publish them on its website, the city attorneys—Nashua Deputy Counsel Leonard and Attorney Hilliard of Upton Hatfield—claimed they would comply. However, once they left the courtroom, they disregarded the court’s order with no real intention of writing anything. The court anticipated that without clear policies, lawsuits would persist, and they have. Rather than directing his frustration toward the City, the judge chose to direct it toward the citizen demanding meaningful action for open records.
The judge exhibited institutional bias, gender bias, and dishonor. My frustration far exceeds his; he had the judicial tools to resolve these matters but opted not to act. The municipal attorneys have effectively locked down City Hall for myself and other marginalized citizens, leaving me powerless to change the situation. I depend on an honorable judicial system that recognizes citizens’ rights and combats discrimination against women. However, City-controlled judges corruptly surrender their authority. These statements represent my opinions based on over 30 appearances over four years before primarily one judge. They are not defamatory; they are opinions rooted in my experiences and perspective.
The Governor and Supreme Court should be mindful of the elitism created by placing left-wing judges with radical left-wing municipal officials. The institution should promote balance, not corruption. The outgoing Governor recently appeared on Close-Up, declaring that the election had sent a clear message from the citizens to “Listen to Us.” The incoming Governor has the opportunity to heed this message. Prioritizing elitism over citizen rights is undermining the spirit and will of the people and fostering a cycle of favoritism. The incoming Governor, an attorney who previously served as State Attorney General, is part of an institution deeply rooted in elitism. Our critical issues extend beyond housing and mental health. Our pursuit of happiness can only be achieved if our rights and liberties are upheld. The incoming Governor must be part of the solution, not a continuation of the existing problem.
