Legislator wants NH AG elected (From UnionLeader.com Saturday, January 15, 2011)

Legislator wants NH AG elected

By GARRY RAYNO
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff

CONCORD – The prime sponsor of a bill that would require the New Hampshire attorney general to join other states in challenging the federal health care reform law may propose that the attorney general be elected by the Legislature.

Before a legislative committee Thursday, Attorney General Michael Delaney said he opposes House Bill 89 mandating that he join a lawsuit, brought by Florida and several other states, challenging the federal health care act. The suit claims the federal law is unconstitutional because it requires people to buy health insurance. 

Parental Alienation Condoned By Attorney Jaye L. Rancourt, GAL/Attorney Douglas A. Thornton, Marital Master David S. Forrest, and Judge John P. Arnold (Part 2)

(To Read Part 1 Click Here)

I think back to time when I would listen to Kenny Loggins song Return to Pooh Corner and proudly look upon my sleeping children.  The hard thing to get over is how Attorney’s like Jaye Rancourt, GAL’s like Doug Thornton, Marital Masters like David Forrest and Judges like John Arnold stole it all away from me by the roles they played in helping my ex-wife to alienate my children from me.  I have read from others that it’s like mourning for your children’s death but you know they are still very much alive.

These people are responsible for seeing that I will never get a chance to watch my children grow up.  They are the ones that played the biggest role in condoning my ex-wife’s parental alienation behavior by rewarding her. 

I have heard some justify parental alienation by saying that it might just be a mother protecting her children, just as these corrupt people I am sure have justified it in their own minds.  What are these people protecting the children from?  I never abused my kids.  I was always there for them.  I was often complimented by my ex wife’s family for being the great dad until the divorce when my ex declared an all out smear campaign.  Then I was portrayed as incompetent and selfish.  A man that thought of their own needs before they thought of their children’s needs.  This is utter nonsense.

Was I selfish when I decided to put my foot down and tell my ex that I was tired of her years of abuse and I didn’t want the children to keep on being in the middle?  Was I selfish for wanting to get away from the physical abuse my ex-wife inflicted upon me?  Was I selfish when I had enough of my ex calling my friends, my family, her family and my boss and telling them I had a “Chemical Imbalance.” 

January 13, 2011 - NH Legislative Public Input session scheduled on 11:00 HB 81, public members of the guardian ad litem board and 1:15 HB 52, modification of parental rights and responsibilities

There is a scheduled NH Legislative Public Input session coming up on two important 2011 Bills. 

Public Input on these two bills has been scheduled for next Thursday January 13 at the Concord LOB Room 206. If you are unable to attend, please provide written testimony on each of these topics to the Children & Family Law Committee at CFL@leg.state.nh.us


The two bills can be viewed at the following links:


1:15 HB 52 modification of parental rights and responsibilities

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB0052.html

11:00 HB 81 public members of the guardian ad litem board.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB0081.html

Supreme Court Rules Against Judge John P. Arnold’s Decision To Sentence Man Twice For The Same Crime

Read the section of the article highlighted in yellow.  How is it that a NH Judge doesn’t know the law on Double Jeopardy and that it takes a trip to the Supreme Court to bring this out?  Any Part Time Police Officer in the State of NH is taught that you can’t charge and convict someone twice for the same crime.  Is this another example of Judge Arnold’s incompetence?  With decisions like this, what does it mean for people going through family court in front of this Judge?  What does it mean when this Judge signs off on Master David Forrest’s decisions? 

______________________________________________________________

Judge keeps same sentence

Former teacher argued for more probation, less jail time

By Casey Farrar
Sentinel Staff

Published:

Thursday, January 6, 2011 12:17 PM EST

Despite winning an appeal from the state’s highest court last year, a former Marlborough School teacher will still serve six months in jail on a child pornography conviction.

Bryan T. Farr, 35, was in Cheshire County Superior Court Wednesday for a re-sentencing.

In early 2009, Farr pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography and delivering child pornography, both felonies.

On the conviction for delivering child pornography, Farr was sentenced to a year at the Cheshire County jail with six months suspended for three years.

He received a suspended prison sentence of three to six years, with 10 years of probation for his conviction on possession of child pornography.

But following a N.H. Supreme Court decision in October that ruled Farr could not be charged with both counts because they were for the same crime, prosecutors and Farr’s attorney agreed that the possession charge and its prison sentence would be dropped.
 

Check Out The Website "Court Whores" - A Site About Exposing Family Court officials and their Accomplices who cover up abuse and coerce children to live with the abusive parent, often eliminating all or most contact with the protective parent.

COURT WHORES

Court Officials and their Accomplices who Sell Out 
**Innocent  Children**

to  ABUSERS  and  MOLESTERS
for
PROFIT  and  POWER

========================

"I cannot tell a lie."--President Abraham Lincoln,

Attorney
Court

Whores are liars and their lies harm children. 
We need more attorneys, judges and court officials like Abraham Lincoln.   
The Blood of Countless Children is on the hands of these Court Whores______________________

**This website is Dedicated to all the Children harmed by Court Whores**
_________________________

The mission of this website is to expose Family Court officials and their Accomplices
who cover up abuse and coerce children to live with the abusive parent,
often eliminating all or most contact with the protective parent.  
It is intended as a warning to anyone who is trying to protect children that the "professionals" listed here
have been known or are believed to aid and abet abusive (especially sexually abusive) parents
and punish protective parents. 

http://www.courtwhores.com/index.html

Attorney John J Cronin III Joins the Unethical “Wall of Shame”

I know of someone that is dealing some post divorce issues with their ex.  Their ex is represented by Cronin.  Cronin appears to be using unethical tactics to drive up the cost of litigation.  I will keep you posted as more information becomes available. 

I recently came upon some information on Attorney John J. Cronin of Bennington, NH which prompted me to add him to The Unethical “Wall Of Shame.”  This information was from the Mass.Gov website http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/bd08-086.htm.

________________________________________________________________

NO. BD-2008-086

IN RE: JOHN J. CRONIN III

S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension/Suspended entered by Justice Botsford on September 29, 2008.¹

SUMMARY²

On February 26, 2008, the respondent John J. Cronin III was suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for six months, all of which was stayed for two years subject to conditions that the respondent take and pass the Multi-state Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) within one year, submit his financial records to random audits, and reimburse the Professional Conduct Committee of the New Hampshire Supreme Court for the costs of investigation and prosecution. The misconduct giving rise to this sanction is as follows.

During an audit of the respondent’s trust account, a staff auditor for the Attorney Discipline Office of New Hampshire discovered that the respondent as a matter of practice deposited retainers paid for services to his operating account prior to earning those retainers in full. The retainers remained in the operating account, and the respondent returned the unearned portion of the retainers and otherwise properly accounted to the clients at the conclusion of the case. The respondent’s failure to deposit the retainers to a trust account violated Rule 1.15(a) of the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct.

The respondent also committed additional misconduct in handling a domestic relations case and the execution of a will. In the domestic relations case, the respondent kept a check for $23,866 representing disputed funds in the matter in his office for three weeks before depositing the check to an interest-bearing account. In the matter involving the will, the respondent signed the client’s will as a witness and left his office prior to the client’s appearance at the office and execution of the will in front of the other witnesses. The respondent’s conduct in the first matter violated New Hampshire Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(a) and, in the will matter, Rule 8.4(c).

The respondent failed to report the suspended suspension to the Office of Bar Counsel. On September 4, 2008, bar counsel filed a petition for reciprocal discipline in the

Supreme Judicial Court

for Suffolk County. Subsequently, the parties waived hearing and assented to an order of reciprocal discipline, which was entered on September 29, 2008.

FOOTNOTES:

¹ The complete Order of the Court is available by contacting the Clerk of the

Supreme Judicial Court

for Suffolk County.

² Compiled by the Board of Bar Overseers based on the record filed with the

Supreme Judicial Court

.

Manchester's Union Leader Runs Article About Marital Master David Forrest - Supreme Court Decision An Example Of His Bias Against Men

E-mails fall short for fault-based divorce
By NANCY WEST
New Hampshire Sunday News (Union Leader) Sunday, Mar. 22, 2009

If you're seeking a fault-based divorce in New Hampshire, you'd better have more than sexually suggestive e-mails and hurt feelings on which to base your case.

That's the message the state Supreme Court sent in a March 5 ruling that set a standard for finding one spouse at fault. The ruling may affect future divorces involving a claim that one spouse caused what state law describes as "serious injury to health or endangered reason" to the other, one of nine grounds for fault-based divorce in New Hampshire.

"The decision raised the bar. It's got to be serious injury, not just hurt feelings," said Nashua attorney William Aivalikles, who represented Daniel R. Guy's appeal of the divorce filed by his wife, Joni Guy.

Joni Guy claimed sexually suggestive e-mails Mr. Guy exchanged with a former girlfriend caused Mrs. Guy to be "angry, upset and distraught," according to court documents.

Senior Associate Justice Linda S. Dalianis, citing previous cases, said Mrs. Guy's claim was based on an 1840 law that allowed divorce when the claim didn't meet the standard for legal cruelty but the conduct "might make life intolerable and death welcome."

Being "angry, upset and distraught" isn't enough to meet that standard, Dalianis wrote, citing similar past cases that involved constant drunken abuse by domineering husbands, including a threat of murder. In each of those cases, the behavior caused some effect to the "innocent" party, such as becoming highly nervous, losing weight or undergoing counseling, Dalianis wrote.

"This kind of effect upon (Mrs. Guy's) physical and mental health is insufficient, as a matter of law, to sustain a divorce. ... In cases involving a divorce upon these grounds, the effect upon the 'innocent' spouse has been much more severe than mere anger and upset and the conduct in which the 'guilty' spouse engaged was more brutal than merely e-mailing his former girlfriend," Dalianis wrote in the unanimous decision.

Few fault-based divorces
Only about 1.3 percent of all New Hampshire divorces last year were completed as fault-based, according to the state Division of Vital Records. There were 4,913 divorces last year, and 4,847 of them were no-fault divorces based on irreconcilable differences.

In 2007, the most recent year for which the National Center for Health Statistics has divorce figures, New Hampshire's divorce rate was 3.8 per 1,000 of the state's total population. That's about the same as the national average, 3.6 per 1,000, although not all states report, according to the NCHS.

Experts estimate between 5 and 10 percent of divorces are filed as fault-based, but fewer than 2 percent are granted, according to the state Division of Vital Records.

Before no-fault divorce became part of New Hampshire law in 1971, a finding of fault was required to dissolve a marriage here, Aivalikles said.

Property settlement
In fault-based divorces, marital assets can be divided to favor the "innocent" party, Aivalikles said.

In the Guy divorce, the original property settlement, which was partially based on Mr. Guy's fault, was vacated in the Supreme Court's ruling.

Mr. Guy is expected to get an additional $56,000 as a result, Aivalikles said.

David Forrest, the marital master who heard the divorce, had recommended the fault-based grounds and the recommendation was approved by Judge William Groff.

The trial court dismissed Mrs. Guy's 2007 fault claims of habitual drunkenness and adultery against her husband of 18 years.

"It's safe to say my wife believed a lot of things that turned out to be untrue," said Mr. Guy, who added that he neither has a drinking problem nor committed adultery.

The ruling will likely mean Daniel Guy, a disc jockey and broadcast engineer, gets to keep at least half of his $112,000 inheritance, which was an issue in the settlement, he said.

"(Justice Dalianis) took more of a common-sense approach to my case. Finding fault was just a stretch," Mr. Guy said.

Joni Guy couldn't be reached for comment, and her attorney, Francis Holland of Nashua, didn't return phone calls to the New Hampshire Sunday News.

Alternatives to litigation
Wilton lawyer Honey Hastings said she changed her practice four years ago after a troubling case involving sexually graphic testimony.

Hastings, who wrote "The New Hampshire Divorce Handbook," said, "I don't litigate anymore. I felt it was enabling people to treat each other badly and hurt children."

She offers services to families, including mediation and collaborative practice, also called "no-court divorce."

Attorney Amy Wolfson of Nashua said fault-based divorces might lead to unequal division of assets, alimony and increased alimony, and may affect parenting rights and responsibilities.

Depending on how outrageous the fault, Wolfson said, the asset split could be 55-45, 60-40 or whatever the judge decides. In one of her cases, she said, her client walked away with 90 percent of the marital assets, though she said such cases are "extraordinary."

Mediation isn't always the best option in divorce cases, Wolfson said.

"Mediation works well when both parties are of equal bargaining power," she said. "When you have power disparity in the marriage, it doesn't work well."

Randy Kessler, secretary of the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association, said New Hampshire is in the mainstream, as about 25 states have both fault and no-fault divorces. Seventeen states have no-fault only, and eight states have fault-based divorces only, he said.

Even if fault isn't alleged in a divorce suit, Kessler said, fault may be found and used as leverage in reaching a favorable settlement for the injured party. Fault also can be relevant in deciding settlements and child-custody arrangements, he said.

End of Article

Let’s not forget that Marital Master David S. Forrest can’t sign off on divorce decisions without a Judge reviewing his decisions and also signing off on them.  Judge John P. Arnold and Judge Brian Tucker signed off on Forrest’s decisions in my divorce case.  These Judges in my opinion are just as guilty for the bad rulings that Forrest continually makes since it is their job to supervise Forrest. 

My ex-wife brought three different fault grounds against me in my divorce.  I brought forth one petition on irreconcilable differences.  Her three charges against me in her cross petition:

1.      Adultery

2.      When either party has so treated the other as seriously to injure health or endanger reason.

3.      Irreconcilable differences

Forest being the bigot he is used emails against me too but here is the real killer.  The adultery I was being accused of was after the fact.  A few weeks after being thrown out of my house, I moved into a four bedroom house with someone of the opposite sex so that I could share expenses and because plainly speaking, I was tired of sleeping in my vehicle and on peoples couches.   Forrest used this against me to support my ex’s theory that I committed adultery (after the fact) and therefore she had no way to reconcile her marriage.  Funny, I thought the marriage was over several months earlier when my ex told me to choose between my job and my family and shortly after I filed for divorce. 

Originally I was supposed to be moving in with two female roommates.  We would each have a bedroom and my kids would have their own bedroom.  It’s a good thing the third woman backed out at the last minute due to her not being able to get out of her existing lease.  God only know what Forrest would have given my ex if I was living with two women at the time of my divorce and sharing a house and expenses.  Forrest incidentally decided that there was no proof of me damaging my ex’s health and reason (I’m sure that anyone could see that her health and reason had been damaged a long time before I knew her).  

Here is how getting thrown out of my house by Forrest transpired.  I got a temporary order of protection against my ex-wife for her assaulting me one night.  My ex mind you was just as big as me and her job was very physical so lets just she was no petite flower.  This was one of the many times that my ex became physical to me.  At the hearing, Forrest dismissed my petition.  A few days later, he threw me out of my house which was the day before Thanksgiving.  I was notified by my attorney that I had to vacate the house immediately.  My ex had friends and family in the area that she could stay with.  I was an outsider.  I had no friends able to take me in and all of my family was two hours away.  I also have a very serious food allergy that I have to contend with which makes it difficult to stay at other peoples houses.  If you ask me, this prejudiced Marital Master that hates men had to find that I did something wrong so that he could justify throwing me out of the house and giving my ex an unequal distribution which included 98% of my childhood possessions, a lot of my clothes, some tools that belonged to my deceased father and a couple pieces of furniture that belonged to my soon to be deceased mother.  One piece of furniture in particular was an antique knick knack shelf that was given to my parents as a wedding gift.  My ex told Forrest that my mother purchased it for her at a yard sale for $20.    

I would love to see people in that State of NH that have so much power like Marital Masters and Judges have to go through counseling as a prerequisite to being appointed and to have a stipulation that the public gets to look at the findings.  Forrest would probably be diagnosed with multiple personality disorders himself.  People like Forrest can not handle power nor should they ever be allowed to be in a position of power. 

Here is an example of the types of frivolous Emails that were used.  Attorney Jaye Rancourt brings up to David Forrest that she found some emails where I stress desire to spend the night with another female.  Rancourt provided the email to Forrest.  I point out to Forrest that the email stated that I was looking forward to spending an evening with this female, watching a “Redsox and Yankee Baseball Game” the following year as this email conversation happened at the very end of baseball season.  This also happened after I signed divorce paperwork and was separated from my ex.  It’s so pathetic that Forrest cites this email in his written decision of fault in my divorce. 

The real sad thing about this email evidence is that I should have appealed this decision.  I didn’t because I was just glad to be away from my sick and deranged ex-wife’s abuse.  I was glad it was over.  I had no money (My divorce broke me at over $50k), no attorney and was just emotionally beat up.  About a month after my divorce, the above article came out.  Had this decision happened a few months earlier, the outcome of my divorce I am sure would have been different and if not, I would have personally gone to the Supreme Court and fought this bigot’s decision on my own.

The State of NH is so pathetic.  Several months after my divorce, I involuntarily became unemployed.  I had no money.  As the saying goes, I didn’t have a pot to piss in.  However because I had the window to throw it out of (I was living with someone who was paying the rent), the State of NH told me that I didn’t qualify for legal assistance to help me with my continuing post divorce frivolous nonsense that Attorney Jaye Rancourt and my ex kept on throwing at me.  I didn’t have any money because I spent it all on my divorce, my credit was tapped out, I sold off what little bit of personal property that I had just so I could pay my child support. My newest vehicle is a 1995 which every time I drive down the road with it and hit a pothole, rust falls off. You get the picture.  I’m not living an elaborate life. 

If you go through a divorce in NH plan for the worst, especially when you are a man and the noncustodial parent.  The State of NH is biased against men to start with.  I believe that men and women should have equal rights but why is it that when there is a divorce with children involved, you quite often see the woman fighting for full custody of the children and trying to deny the man access to his children?  Where is the equality here?  I can’t speak for everyone but in my case it was all about money.  My ex told me and numerous people that she was going to ruin me and take all of money and property.  However, it didn’t ruin me.  It made me a stronger person. 

Marital Masters and Judges will continue to be biased against men as long as the system remains old and archaic.  If you are a man in a contested divorce, expect to lose custody of your kids to a sick spouse, expect to have all of your values as a man deflated, expect to not be listened to when you tell the truth, and expect that in the end you will be bankrupt.  I’m telling you this so that you can plan ahead.  I wish knew what I know now and that I had time to plan ahead so I could stash money away.  That wasn’t my case.  My ex stopped contributing to the household a few months before I was thrown out of the house so I had to cover all expenses on my own.   Then when I got thrown out of the house, Forrest orders me to pay the mortgage in lieu of child support which was more then $400 a month above the NH child support guidelines and then holds it against me when I can’t afford to keep up with payments after many months of this nonsense.      

Recently, someone pointed out to me that there is a reason that NH Judges and Marital Masters order child support to be paid through the Department of Health and Human Services.  When the State acts like a collection agency for child support, the Federal Government pays the State money to do this.  The State of NH likes to have an income at the expense of the Federal Government and it is a major source of how the State of NH is funded.   What Forrest, Tucker, and Arnold as well as all the other Marital Masters and Judges are doing is just like in the old days when police departments wrote tickets to fund themselves.  A cop would write a ticket.  The money would go to the cop’s agency thus giving a great incentive for cops to write lots of tickets.  Even when people didn’t do anything wrong cops would write tickets just for the money.  It’s called corruption and in NH we have a lot of Marital Masters like Forrest and Judges like Tucker and Arnold that foster corruption.  Let’s work together to get these people removed and lets get the laws changed. 

I have been made aware of some house bills that are going to be proposed to the NH House this coming year that will help deal with some of these issues of bias.  I will try to post them once I get more information. 

Family Court In NH Is A Joke – Marital Master David Forrest Is The Ringmaster Of A Three Ring Circus

In Master Forest’s Three Ring Circus first comes the bickering, his deciphering and then men’s suffering. 

In looking back at my divorce file I noted a lot of things that were interesting.  My Alienated children can someday look back at what Forrest did to them and thank Forrest for devaluing their father and empowering their mother, an Alienating parent who thinks of her needs over her children’s needs.  I have records in a safe place and someday when my kids are older, I will let them look through the records so that they can learn the real truth and not the lies that their mother has filled their minds with. 

First of all Forrest made a lot of decisions on hearsay and testimony with no evidence presented.  Keep in mind that in a divorce, the burden of proof is the preponderance of evidence.  Not proof beyond the reason of doubt.  What does this translate into?  Whoever has the better story and who ever is more believable wins.  The burden of preponderance of evidence gives people like Forrest too much leeway and too much power.  They can totally ruin a person if they see fit to.  For the common person you don’t have the resources to fight it.  It is so costly you will end up bankrupt before your divorce is done and plan on a two year fight.  This is the atmosphere that Forrest encourages.  He like conflict.  I think he feels empowered by it. 

An example of Forrest poor judgment is, my ex told Forrest that she paid for my $10k college loan and told Forrest that I didn’t work much.  He liked her story.  She provided no physical evidence.  Just her testimony.  Forrest in his decision stated he believed what my ex-wife had said. He took her word over mine.  Why? He is a biased man hating pig.   I told Forrest when I testified that I have records that prove my ex was lying. 

I have records from the government showing that I paid off most of my loans prior to our marriage and the government paid off most of the rest when Bill Clinton signed a law reimbursing police officers on their student loans for service as a full time cop.  I brought this up to Forrest at the hearing but he decided that I was lying and took my ex wife’s testimony as gospel.  Call me a liar now Forrest.  I have your written decision and I have the records in my possession and can prove what I say is true. 

I also have my statements from SSN. When I was married, I made more money then my ex did.  How is that possible for a low life blood sucking leach that Forrest portrayed me out to be?  In his decision he portrays me out to be a man whore that worked part time and was unemployed most of the time when in fact I worked long hours with lots of overtime to support my ex wife’s spending habits.  Oh that’s right, my ex told him I was a deadbeat husband and again he believed her. 

When I questioned my ex in court, I caught her in several lies.  She testified that she never called State Police on me.  I provided Forrest a State Police Report where my ex called and spoke with a Trooper inquiring how she could legally get me out of the house.  The Trooper asked if I was abusive to her or the kids in which she stated no that I was not.  The trooper told her there was nothing he could do for her.  My ex’s response was that was what her attorney told her (This was her second attorney and not Jaye Rancourt). 

I had to deal with this kind of crap and maintain my job as a cop at the same time.  Forrest should have given me a medal for being able to deal with my while maintaining my job.  My ex totally denied that it was her who called this Trooper and spoke with him.  My ex in my opinion is sick but let me tell you, she knew what she was doing.  Her moves were calculated. 

If you are going through a divorce, learn about personality disorders.  Many people have them.  If you can learn about personality disorders, it may help with your situation if you can understand what you’re dealing with. 

Just remember, a system that allows a person like Forrest to make decisions on the preponderance of evidence is bound to fail.  People like Forrest abuse their power.  If you have a contested divorce in front of Forrest and you are a man, I would recommend that you ask him to recuse himself from the case due to his being biased.  Forrest does not have the ability to be fair to men.  I have had numerous people contact me because of this blog and they tell me their stories of how Forrest abused them and condoned giving full custody of their children to the alienating parent.  I hope that my stories about Forrest unethical behavior will help others to deal with their divorce and custody issues.  Anyone wanting to contact me with their stories or for assistance can be assured that I will keep there identity anonymous. 

Douglas A Thornton Listed On NH Guardian Ad Litem Board’s List – Listed As “Expired or Renewal Denied” – How the State Of NH Protects Those Working For The State That Have Enormous Power To Destroy Lives And Yet The State Refuses To Give The Public Access To Information About These People

Here is a list that was published by the Guardian Ad Litem Board in NH.  As you will note, Douglas Thornton is listed as “Expired or Renewal Denied.”  This document is available at the following link. http://www.nh.gov/gal/documents/BoardCertifiedGALs-Alpha.pdf

CHANGES IN GUARDIAN AD LITEM STATUS

Changes through December 8, 2010

Suspended:

• Lenora Boehm

• Marsha Lavallee Huntoon

Newly approved

• Lynn Aaby

• Arlene Agosto

• Tracy Bernson

• William Cleary

• Margo Cooper

• Tina Craig

• Anna Elbroch

• Kristen Finnegan

• Carleen Forrest

• Barbara Gardner

• Aprel Goddard

• Lucinda Hopkins

• Robin Partello

• Elizabeth Rodd

• Laura Vaillancourt

Expired or renewal denied:

• Michael Atkins

• Dianna Baker

• Lisa Bellanti

• Paul Bennett

• Floreen Keifer-Bishop

• Quentin Blaine

• Barry Bolduc

• George Bortnick

• David Braiterman

• Peter Brigham

• Susan Brown

• Peter Brunette

• Deborah Buxton

• Cindee Carter

• Mark Cavanaugh

• Karen Collman

• Clark Corson

• RoAnne Cronin

• Timothy Cunningham

• Gail Cyr

• Susan Denenberg

• Elaine Dolph

• Daniel Dwyer

• Edmunds Everett

• Michael Finamore

• John Fox

• Patricia Frim

• Christopher Garner

• Matthew Garthwait

• Jill Gaumont

• Kim Gaumont

• Michelle Gosselin-Limire

• Tammy Gosling

• Joan Gross

• Margaret Cunnane Hall

• Marianne Hannagan

• Jeremy Harmon

• Patrick Harrigan

• John Harwood

• Honey Hastings

• Tricia Hayes

• James Hurley

• David Kamen

• Kathy LaRocque

• Marcia Leighninger

• Thomas Mandra

• Jeanette Marino

• Steven Markiewicz

• Elizabeth Maynard

• Barbara McCracken

• Glenn McCracken

• Andrea McCusker

• Robert McKenney

• Norma Micheroni

• Fred Miller

• Kathy Needleman

• Deborah Shepherd

• Douglas Thornton

Someone contacted the GAL board for information and here is their response. 

1^st Request For Information From GAL Board

Hi:
I recently noticed that GAL Douglas Thornton is on a list of "Expired or renewal denied." as for changes through December 1st 2010.  How do I find out information about this?  I would like to know what information is available to me. 

Thanks

1^st Response To Request

Good Morning,

I am not sure what information you are requesting, so I am including the dates of any status changes for Mr. Thornton. I reviewed Mr. Thornton’s file and found that he was originally certified by the Guardian ad Litem Board on March 13, 2006.  His certification expired on March 13, 2009.  He did apply for Guardian ad Litem Certification again in the summer of 2010; however, the board denied his application on September 24, 2010.  He is not a board certified GAL, and has not been board certified since his original expiration date.   

If you are looking for something more specific please let me know and I can try to get that information for you if it is indeed public information.  The reasons for denial are not public information.   

Thank you,

Katherine

GAL Board Secretary

2^nd Request Asking For Information

Thank you for your speedy response.  You answered most of my questions.  Specifically, I am assisting a friend with some post divorce issues.  Doug Thornton was the GAL.  It would be helpful is we could find out why Mr. Thornton's application was denied as there could be some impact on the post divorce issues.  I am a little confused why that information would not be open to the public under the NH Right to Know law and if it is not subject to right to know, how could someone find out?  A petition to the court?  Subpoena?  Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. 

2^nd Response To Request

The reason for denial is exempt from right to know requests pursuant RSA 91-A:3 II(c), and cannot be disclosed.  If he had requested a hearing to challenge the board’s denial of his application, then the information would have become public, but he did not.  I am a secretary, and I am unaware of how you would force the release of exempt information, but I think it may be through the Supreme Court, but you may want to get some legal advice on that.

If you are under the assumption that the reason for denial stems from a complaint about Mr. Thornton as a GAL, I can inform you that all disciplinary decisions regarding GALs are posted to the board’s website under the complaints section.  I do not see that any disciplinary action was ever taken against Mr. Thornton.

If your friend wishes to file a complaint against Mr. Thornton, there is paperwork available on the Board’s website under the complaints section.  However, it should be noted that the board can only handle complaints against certified GALs, so if the time period during which the violations took place was after Mr. Thornton expired, then the complaint would need to be directed to the court, and she would need to contact them as to how to file a complaint.

Thank you

Katherine

GAL Board Secretary

As you can see, the secretary in quite polite in her response.  She notes that the reason for Thornton being denied his certification is not subject to the right to know laws.  Here is a person that has caused a great deal of destruction to two young boys and God knows who else but you can’t find out why his application was denied.  Do you see something wrong with this?  What is the GAL Board covering up?  Thornton created a lot of problems for my divorce, he was biased and negligent in the way he handled the case but I can’t find out why he was denied his certification. 

Someday my children will become adults.  They will someday realize that their father did everything he could do to be in their lives but had his rights taken away by a sick mother that breeds on Parent Alienation as well as her attorney Jaye Rancourt, a negligent GAL Douglas Thornton along with Master Forrest and Judge Arnold. 

Cheshire County Judge John P. Arnold and Marital Master David S. Forrest Fail Surveys On The Courthouse Forum!

It’s pathetic that we have Judge’s and Marital Masters in Cheshire County that rate so poor on surveys.  The NH Judicial system needs a reform.  It’s too bad we can’t vote these people out of office like they do in other states.  

If you go to the Courthouse Forum with the following link:

http://www.courthouseforum.com///forums/directory.php?letter=a

You will be on a page that has Judge John P. Arnold’s score.  Arnold received a D- rating. 

Click on the F tab to go to Forrest.  He rated slightly better with a D+. 

It is no wonder why Cheshire County Superior Court has so many issues when it comes to the marital division.  Please go to the Courthouse Forum and take the survey. 

An Example On How Attorney Douglas A Thornton of Surry NH Unethically Runs His Law Practice – He Prides Himself On Being A Guardian Ad Litem That Is Smarter Than An Eight Year Old!

I recall speaking with Attorney Douglas A. Thornton of Surry NH, during my divorce.  He was the court appointed Guardian Ad Litem.  I repeatedly told him that my ex-wife was doing everything in her power to alienate the children from me.  I explained how she was making things up and that she was using the kids against me.  Thornton doesn’t believe in Parent Alienation. 

Thornton I remember told me that he was smarter than an eight year old (my oldest son’s age) and knew how to question him to get his answers.  Maybe Doug Thornton can go on the show “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader.”  It would be truly amusing. 

Doug Thornton questioned my sons alright.  He played right into my ex-wife’s warped mind and got all the wrong answers.  As I posted in a previous article, my ex-wife, the one who in my “opinion” has multiple personality disorders.  Thornton was told by my attorney that there were counseling records obtained in discovery from my ex-wife and in our opinions, she was diagnosed with multiple personality disorders and was refusing to be treated.  I remember Thornton’s response all too well.  He said that the records came too late for him to consider them for his findings and he also didn’t have the expertise to interpret them.  Shame on Doug Thornton!  It was his job as GAL to look into the counseling records.  His actions aided my ex-wife in alienating the children from me.  He is incompetent as a GAL and an attorney and should be disbarred. 

I remember listening to Doug Thornton in court speaking to one of the court officers and making a joke of his job.  He said that he had a good routine.  As a GAL he was paid by divorcing parties and as a bankruptcy attorney, he would get paid by these same people at a later time when they had to file bankruptcy.  Does this sound unethical? 

Doug Thornton approached me in court after this comment and asked about the remainder of my bill that I owed him.  I owed him a small amount of money.  I explained I was doing my best but had been experiencing extreme financial hardship.  I had noticed in documents that my ex-wife had paid Thornton very little and she owed him a considerable amount of money.  When I asked him if he would work with me he became irate and threatened to bring me to court and to have me found in contempt of court.  I stated to him that my ex-wife according to his records had hardly paid him and he said that was none of my business. 

I realized some months after my divorce was finalized and I had paid Thornton’s bill that I had no records to show that my debt was paid.  I contacted Thornton and asked him for a final statement.  He became irate with me. 

Below is the first and second email I sent him politely asking for a statement.  Read the emails from the bottom up to follow the conversation.   All correspondence has my name blacked out to protect my minor children.  Read from the bottom to the top to follow the conversation. 

Thornton responds after the second request and states he is busy and is avoids the request.  I then send him another email telling him that I find it ridiculous that he billed over $5,000 for his services and can’t understand why I can’t get a statement.  Thornton then accuses me of throwing my weight around as a police officer.  I have to email him back and tell him I am no longer working as a police officer.  Read the email below and start from the bottom and read to the top. 

So after this bullying email from Doug Thornton, he writes me a letter and sends it to me in PDF format.  He asks me to give this to my current attorney.  I find the third and fourth paragraph disturbing. 

In the third paragraph, Thornton justifies not giving me a final statement since in the past I questioned why he was singling me out and telling me he was going to file court action against me for owing a few hundred dollars when my ex-wife owed him thousands of dollars.  Thornton states that he makes no determination whether it is profitable to pursue fees and he knows of no law that requires him to spend time to collect on a bad debt.  I know I paid Thornton in full.  What does he mean by this?  It appears to me that he may have overbilled me and is letting my ex-wife get away without paying.  Do you see a problem with this.  A GAL that would do this is UNETHICAL. 

In the fourth paragraph, Thornton defends himself as I had stated to him that I had counsel (Which my counsel was dealing with some post divorce issues and wanted me to get up to date records).  I never told him what the counsel was for.  He made an assumption it was to file a lawsuit against him.  Why would Thornton think this way?  From my experiences it’s because he did something wrong.  See the letter below.

So now that you have the facts, do you think this attorney is unethical?  Do you think he has something to hide?  You definitely do not want to give this guy any business.  He will do to you what he did to me.  I feel like he robbed me blind.  As a GAL My opinion is that he is incompetent.  I have had specialized training on questioning children.  When I asked Thornton on the witness stand if he had any training on forensic questioning of children he said no.  I believe it.  So what do you think?  Is Douglas A Thornton smarter than an eight year old?