State of New Hampshire
Laconia District Court County of Belknap
State v Jean E. Allan
Docket NO: 09-CR-4147
MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S December, 20, 2010 ORDER RE: RESTORATION COMPETENCY HEARING
NOW COMES, DEFENDANT Jean E. Allan aka Jean E.Allan Sovik with the above Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59-A; and in support of this Motion states as follows:
- Rule 59-A. (1) A motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief shall be filed within ten (10) days of the date on the Clerk's written notice of the order or decision, which shall be mailed by the Clerk on the date of the notice. The motion shall state, with particular clarity, points of law or fact that the Court has overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain such argument in support of the motion as the movant desires to present; but the motion shall not exceed ten (10) pages. A hearing on the motion shall not be permitted except by order of the Court.
- Defendant Allan/Sovik perceived from the Court’s comments that it misapprehend her attempt to show the relevancy of the linkage of the October 13. 2009 Report by the State’s Expert witness, New Hampshire Office of Forensic Examiner; and, the State’s inability to bear its burden of proof in the underlying criminal complaint of trespass. With all due respect Defendant Allan/Sovik will try again in this instant Motion.
- Just prior to the Court convening, the State offered Defendant Allan/Sovik the opportunity to plead guilty or nolo contentre to the misdemeanor b charge of criminal trespass. The implication was that if Defendant Allan/Sovik were to plead out, the State would confirm that she was competent. And, if she refused the plea, then the State would testify that she was not restorable to competency. Defendant Allan/Sovik refused the plea offer, and as the Court now knows, the State testified that Defendant Allan/Sovik was not restorable to competency.
- And, based on the State’s testimony, since none of the State’s expert witnesses appeared before the court in order to be available to be cross examined by Defendant Allan/Sovik, the Court, from the bench, dismissed the case. The prosecutor stated at the end of the hearing that the dismissal was ‘due to the fact that Defendant Allan/Sovik was not competent to stand trial’.
- Sua Sponte across the Nation, Court’s have become increasingly concerned about the accuracy and reliability of testimony submitted to them by its own officers of the court. This Court should share that concern in this case.
- The integrity of the court system is at stake in this issue. Prosecutorial abuse of process is a very serious matter. To use the issue of competency as threat in a plea bargain is a prima facie example of persecution: not prosecution. And, no Court should tolerate such abuse.
- The Court’s excuse of fragmented assignment of judges, is no excuse. Fragmented justice is effectively no justice at all.
WHEREAS, Defendant Allan/Sovik agrees with the Court that this case should be dismissed. Defendant Allan/Sovik does not concur with the State’s conclusion that she is not competent.
WHEREAS, Defendant Allan/Sovik is convinced that the State could not bear the burden of proof that she trespassed as charged, in this instant case.
WHEREAS, Defendant Allan/Sovik informed the civil court judge in re: 09-E-183 that she went to the property only after she was in possession of the Temporary Restraining Order that gave her permission to do so.
WHEREAS, the State found it necessary to have an exparte communication with the civil court judge in order to convince her to change the order, should give this Court notice that the State could not bear its burden otherwise.
THEREFORE, Defendant Allan/Sovik prays that this Court:
- Immediately Order that the State show cause in support of its testimony that Defendant Allan/Sovik is not restorable to competency at this time. If for no other reason than to assure the public that the State is not using the Office of Forensic Examiner for improper means; and, to ensure that Defendant Allan/Sovik is afforded her Constitutional rights to due process to cross examine the State’s expert witnesses in re: October 13, 2009 Report.
- And, in furtherance of justice that the Court appoint a special master to review State prosecutor’s, and other arresting officers, actions in this instant criminal charge of criminal trespass to include but not limited to: The State’s and the Town of Center Harbor’s relationship with the complaining witness; and their cart blanche acceptance of the complaining witness’s Affidavit, in spite of other more compelling facts that the Affidavit was false. And, the witness did not have ‘clean hands’.
- Other State Courts are now taking similar actions with respect to widespread and systematic foreclosure fraud in their States. Recent testimony before US Congressional Committees has pointed out the deception and fraudulent acts of, for example, Robo signers. One of the uber Robo signers that has been publicly revealed is in the chain of unrecorded title with respect to Defendant Allan/Sovik’s family’s property. The State’s prosecutor has a duty to the Court, and to justice; and, not solely to the complaining witness. Other State’s Sheriff’s have taken the courageous stand of demanding true and accurate documentation from alleged foreclosing lenders prior to evicting a citizen taxpayer from its property.
- And, the other Courts have accepted that due to the systemic foreclosure fraud, that they have a duty to due process. In this case the duty would require an in depth review of State’s policies to include, but not be limited to: the practices, and processes of the public defenders’ actions that have allowed the State hide from its burden, but get the benefit of the Report. And, an attempt to shift the burden to the defendant as the State has in this instant matter, is unconstitutional on its face, as the Court pointed out at the December 20, 2010 hearing.
- When considering the three branches of government, is the Court’s responsibility to insure that the integrity of the system is maintained. And, it is the Court’s administrative burden to ensure quality controls are in place to satisfy compliance with the laws of the State and the Court’s own Rules. Otherwise, the Court runs the risk of being hijacked and handcuffed, due to the lack of funds the State has imposed upon it. And, there is no justice to be had by any defendant in such a fragmented system.
Affidavit
I, Jean E. Allan aka Jean E. Allan Sovik, do depose and testify that the facts recited in the above Motion are true.
Respectfully submitted: Date: 12/22/10
Jean E. Allan aka Jean E. Allan Sovik
Current mailing address: 883 Weirs Blvd. Unit 44, Laconia, NH 03246 603-581-6183
Certification of Delivery
I, Jean E. Allan aka Jean E. Allan Sovik do hereby certify that on this 22 day of December, 2010 I mailed a true copy of this Motion to State’s Prosecutor Robert Libby.
|
