David W. Johnson's May 11, 2011 "Affidavits of Truth"

additional commentary by NH Rep. Timothy Horrigan; September 2 & 23, 2011 and November 14, 2011 and January 30, 2012

See Also:

On May 11, 2011, David Johnson filed 4 commercial affidavits with the family division of the Franklin, NH circuit court. This is part of his long-running child custody case, "In the Matter of [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] and David Johnson, 2000-M-0407." (Yes, the "2000" in the docket number does mean the case was first filed in the year 2000.)

Commercial affidavits or "Affidavits of truth" are a favorite stratagem of people who consider themselves "sovereign citizens." Johnson's affidavits are an attempt to unilaterally replace the laws of the state of New Hampshire (as they have been applied to his situation) with something called "Commercial Law" (which supposedly "is based upon certain eternally just, valid, and moral Precepts and Truths, which have remained unchanged for at least six thousand years, having its roots in Mosaic Law.") The phrase "Commercial Law" does not quite mean the same thing to the sovereign-citizen crowd as it does to mainstream lawyers, judges and businesspeople.

Someone— it is unclear who— is expected under Commercial Law to challenge David's allegations "point for point." If they fail to do so, then David's side of the story will (ostensibly) have been tacitly established in its entirety as "Truth in Commerce."

I can see a few possible flaws in this strategy, beginning with the basic fact there are already thousands of pages of legal documents related to the dispute. Each one of those documents has least as much claim to validity as these four affidavits. The previous documents may not be labeled "affidavits of truth"— and not everything in them is actually true— but each document is a sincere (or insincere, as the case may be) expression of what one party or another's version of the "truth" happened to be.

To the best of my knowledge, as of November 2011, neither [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted], Marital Master Philip Cross, Guardian Ad Litem Bruce Wechsler, nor anyone else involved in David Johnson's case has, bothered to file even an incomplete "rebuttal Affidavit of Truth"— let alone one which completely rebuts each and every point. Many of his points would be impossible for any of the parties to rebut or confirm.

On September 8, 2011, an administrator from the court system came to testify before the House Petitions & Redress Committee, and he provided us with copies of the docket for Johnson vs. Johnson. This docket ran to 42 printed pages with 588 motions filed (and counting.) These affidavits were the 585th motion; the 586th was a request a month later by David Johnson for a summary judgement. His request was denied.

In any event, these four affidavits are of special interest because they comprehensively outline Johnson's side of a dispute which has so far has led to three of his own House Petitions, a fourth House Petition filed by a friend of his, a set of Bill of Address hearings in 2010, multiple court cases, and all sorts of other uproar. There is doubtless more uproar to come in the future.

See:




Affidavit #1:



STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Franklin Family Division, Merrimack County

In The Matter of [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] and David Johnson

2000-M-0407

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

Whereas The Eternal And Unchanging Principles Of The Laws Of Commerce Are:

  1. A matter must be expressed to be resolved.

  2. In Commerce, Truth is sovereign:

  3. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit.

  4. An unrebutted Affidavit stands as Truth in Commerce.

  5. An unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgement in Commerce.

  6. An Affidavit of Truth, under Commercial Law, can only be satisfied:

    1. through a rebuttal Affidavit of Truth, point for point,

    2. by payment,

    3. by agreement,

    4. by resolution by a jury by the rules of Common Law.

  7. All are equal under the Common Law.

The foundation of Commercial Law is based upon certain eternally just, valid, and moral Precepts and Truths, which have remained unchanged for at least six thousand years, having its roots in Mosaic Law. Said Commercial Law forms the underpinnings of Western Civilization, if not all Nations, Law, and Commerce in the world. Commercial Law is non-judicial, and is prior to and superior to, the basis of, and cannot be set aside Or overruled by the statutes of any Governments, Legislatures, Governmental, or Quasi- Governmental agencies, Courts, Judges, and law enforcement agencies, which are under an inherent obligation to uphold said Commercial Law.

KNOW ALL MEN, THAT I CERTIFY IN THIS AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH THAT THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE TRUE, CORRECT, AND COMPLETE:

I, David Johnson, Pro Se, the undersigned, do solemnly swear and affirm, declare, attest, and depose:

  1. That I am of lawful age and am competent to make this Affidavit.

  2. That I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.

  3. That I am not under the lawful guardianship or disability of another.

This sworn Affidavit is made as a matter of record of my own right, pro se, in my own proper status, propia persona.

  1. The "secret" sealed envelope represents an egregious abuse of my rights to confront any alleged evidence or witness against me and my parental rights.

  2. Nowhere in any stipulations or contract with G.A.L Bruce Wechsler does it state that I saw a secret, sealed envelope which could contain absolutely anything, any untruth, false allegation, unsubstantiated claim, false testimony, misrepresentation, mischaracterization, or harm done by another to me or the child, to be submitted to the Court without my ability and my right under the Constitution to protect my rights as a parent.

  3. The presence of this envelope and this policy represents a clear and present danger to the safety and well being to my rights as a parent and my family,.most especially my daughter. It was accepted with all the other hearsay, without one single witness.

  4. G.A.L. Wechsler became belligerent and combative when I confronted him with the facts that I caught him lying and misrepresenting the statements of my daughter's PCP.

  5. Wechsler became extremely manipulative and distant after I filed a couple of Motions for Contempt for willfully disobeying the Court Order for him to find a therapist for the Child.

  6. Wechsler went many months in his failure to find a therapist for the Child.

  7. Attorney Werme confronted Wechsler, on this issue. It is our belief that Wechsler had every intention of stalling so he could show up in Court as the "one and only voice of the child" in that there would be no therapist to testify.

  8. In desperation to end this manipulation, I hired a therapist and it took less than one day.

  9. Each and every time a therapist testified or wrote to the Court against [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted], the Court allowed [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] to fire the therapists.

  10. The Court refused to allow the reports of the NH DCYF and the HHS Ombudsman, Dr. William Brehm, because they showed clearly that the mother was causing multiple problems for our daughter and that I was the one clearing up the problems by seeking the proper treatment, as the Court claimed it was because the HHS and DCYF officials were not there at the hearing.

  11. When I subpoenaed the DCYF and Dr. Brehm to Court for the next hearing, the Court did not allow them to testify or be there for proof of testimony for their reports which conflicted sharply against the claims of [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] and the Court.

  12. The manufactured complications of [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] and the Court could be circumvented if the G.A.L could be allowed to prevent the exposure of all the damaging evidence and documentation at the next trial, which was requested by me.

  13. Wechsler requested that the Court not look back more than eighteen months to all that which the Court was trying to desperately to distance.

  14. Wechsler was granted the request.

  15. At the trial, Wechsler was allowed to enter hearsay and allegations against me from years before the bogus eighteen month rule.

  16. At the trial, Wechsler put forth his allegations which were one hundred percent hearsay, not one independent witness, no substantiation to any of his claims, falsified statements and omitted from my witnesses, claims which were based upon absolute lies about my relationship with my daughter, and he got totally derailed in Court during my questioning and my testimony.

  17. Wechsler entered an envelope which I have not been able to review, causing more alienation between my daughter and I.

  18. Wechsler got caught lying by Representative Ingbretson about visitation communication, and supporting [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted]'s bogus claim for why she wouldn't allow me to see my daughter.

  19. Wechsler got caught lying by Representative Baldasaro as he tried to back-peddle on the supervision issue as he supported [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] for refusing to allow him to watch over my daughter and I, even though my daughter did know and like "Al "

  20. In another case, Wechsler entered as evidence, "hearsay" from an interview with a woman in Londonderry, who will come forward to state that she never had a conversation with him.

  21. Wechsler's input, from start to finish, including the illegitimate secret sealed envelope, as it must be replete with the same types of misrepresentations that are throughout everything Wechsler contributed to this case, must be stricken from the entire record.

  22. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] through counsel objected to me viewing the envelope's contents, just as her counsel objected to the DCYF and Ombudsman's reports.

  23. After [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] and Attorney Jon Ross viewed a hospital file showing that I picked up our daughter with another neglected infection, antibiotics prescribed, and the symptoms, she sat silently as Attorney Ross stated, "Your Honor, there was no infection. The test results were negative. Mr. Johnson exaggerated the problem." Jon Ross withdrew after Attorney Werme sent a letter to the PCC [Professional Conduct Committee].

  24. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] didn't want Wechsler to contend with the entire history at trial, or for the DCYF and Ombudsman's Reports, for me to see our daughter, or now for me to see inside of the controversial envelope.

  25. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] and Wechsler want me to seek a psychological evaluation.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, that the foregoing, to the best of my knowledge, is true, correct and complete.

Dated: 5/11/11


Affidavit #2:



STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Franklin Family Division, Merrimack County

In The Matter of [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] and David Johnson

2000-M-0407

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

Whereas The Eternal And Unchanging Principles Of The Laws Of Commerce Are:

  1. A matter must be expressed to be resolved.

  2. In Commerce, Truth is sovereign:

  3. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit.

  4. An unrebutted Affidavit stands as Truth in Commerce.

  5. An unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgement in Commerce.

  6. An Affidavit of Truth, under Commercial Law, can only be satisfied:

    1. through a rebuttal Affidavit of Truth, point for point,

    2. by payment,

    3. by agreement,

    4. by resolution by a jury by the rules of Common Law.

  7. All are equal under the Common Law.

The foundation of Commercial Law is based upon certain eternally just, valid, and moral Precepts and Truths, which have remained unchanged for at least six thousand years, having its roots in Mosaic Law. Said Commercial Law forms the underpinnings of Western Civilization, if not all Nations, Law, and Commerce in the world. Commercial Law is non-judicial, and is prior to and superior to, the basis of, and cannot be set aside Or overruled by the statutes of any Governments, Legislatures, Governmental, or Quasi-Governmental agencies, Courts, Judges, and law enforcement agencies, which are under an inherent obligation to uphold said Commercial Law.

KNOW ALL MEN, THAT I CERTIFY IN THIS AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH THAT THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE TRUE, CORRECT, AND COMPLETE:

I, David Johnson, Pro Se, the undersigned, do solemnly swear and affirm, declare, attest, and depose:

  1. That I am of lawful age and am competent to make this Affidavit.

  2. That I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.

  3. That I am not under the lawful guardianship or disability of another.

This sworn Affidavit is made as a matter of record of my own right, pro se, in my own proper status, propia persona.

  1. The Child Support Order was written in the most abusive manner in conflict with the State and Federal Child Support Guidelines.

  2. In violation of Federal Funding law, the Div of Support Enforcement, and the Family Division has been enforcing support and an arrearage based upon that Order.

  3. When I had 65% of the parenting time and all the bills never enforced, made by [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted], and all expenses of the Child including the school and daycare paid by me, including during [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted]'s parenting time, I was ordered to pay support and arrearage.

  4. Master Cross held a hearing for the elements of criminal contempt, called it a civil contempt hearing, denying me a trial by jury in the Superior Court, and jailed my with the help of Judge Sadler for nearly 10 weeks.

  5. "Bail" was set and lowered by Judge Sadler when there is no bail for civil contempt, and she circumvented US Supreme Court Ruling in Hicks vs. Feiock by claiming I had.

  6. Sadler claimed I had the ability to pay because I could borrow the money from my sister.

  7. Judge Sadler ignored repeated Motions from Attorney Werme for Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law and requests for clarifications were ignored.

  8. Master Cross acknowledged my income was the same as [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted]'s, yet ignored the fact that the Child was with me most of the time, yet retaliated against me by ordering me to pay support when the guidelines demonstrated otherwise.

  9. Even though the NH Supreme Court ruled in Miller vs. Todd against Master Cross for similar abuses to my Case, he continues to this day to commit similar violations as revealed in new Petitions in the General Court.

  10. My daughter and I have suffered tremendously for the financial burdens caused by the forced sale of our home, illegal incarceration, and now an arrearage which is unsustainable and untenable.

  11. I suffered financial trouble and then severe and debilitating repair costs to my vehicle preventing me from working throughout the winter months.

  12. I was paying the support until the financial and transportation disaster hit me which prevented me from getting anywhere in the rural/residential area where I live, that is walking distance from nowhere and there is no public transportation there.

  13. I have found work. It will be enough to sustain me and after a reasonable amount of time allow me to re-continue my support payments.

  14. Was was willing to pay as I did, but I was unable.

  15. Today I am willing and will be able by the end of this month [presumably, May 2011] to resume payments.

  16. The amount of the payments must be modified to accommodate the changes for my daughter and I.

  17. Any attempt to jail me will simply foil all my efforts to comply with the Order and will be counterproductive as well as thwart my ability to pay.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, that the foregoing, to the best of my knowledge, is true, correct and complete.

Dated- 5/11/11


Affidavit #3:



STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Franklin Family Division, Merrimack County

In The Matter of [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] and David Johnson

2000-M-0407

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

Whereas The Eternal And Unchanging Principles Of The Laws Of Commerce Are:

  1. A matter must be expressed to be resolved.

  2. In Commerce, Truth is sovereign:

  3. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit.

  4. An unrebutted Affidavit stands as Truth in Commerce.

  5. An unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgement in Commerce.

  6. An Affidavit of Truth, under Commercial Law, can only be satisfied:

    1. through a rebuttal Affidavit of Truth, point for point,

    2. by payment,

    3. by agreement,

    4. by resolution by a jury by the rules of Common Law.

  7. All are equal under the Common Law.

The foundation of Commercial Law is based upon certain eternally just, valid, and moral Precepts and Truths, which have remained unchanged for at least six thousand years, having its roots in Mosaic Law. Said Commercial Law forms the underpinnings of Western Civilization, if not all Nations, Law, and Commerce in the world. Commercial Law is non-judicial, and is prior to and superior to, the basis of, and cannot be set aside Or overruled by the statutes of any Governments, Legislatures, Governmental, or Quasi-Governmental agencies, Courts, Judges, and law enforcement agencies, which are under an inherent obligation to uphold said Commercial Law.

KNOW ALL MEN, THAT I CERTIFY IN THIS AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH THAT THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE TRUE, CORRECT, AND COMPLETE:

I, David Johnson, Pro Se, the undersigned, do solemnly swear and affirm, declare, attest, and depose:

  1. That I am of lawful age and am competent to make this Affidavit.

  2. That I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.

  3. That I am not under the lawful guardianship or disability of another.

This sworn Affidavit is made as a matter of record of my own right, pro se, in my own proper status, propia persona.

  1. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] is in contempt of the Court Order because she decided to terminate the visits between our daughter and I for no valid, lawful reason.

  2. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] violated the Court Order stating my visitation schedule with our daughter by refusing to cooperate with Representative Ingbretson and I, refusing to allow me to see our daughter, as she stated to him that she will not allow any more visits.

  3. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] did not have any fear of imminent danger to our daughter and she did not introduce any pleadings with the Court to make such a claim.

  4. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] committed a misdemeanor in violation of RSA 633:4 as she prevented our daughter from seeing me in an interference of freedom.

  5. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] has been in contempt of the Court Orders several times in the past when she disagreed with the Court ordered parenting schedule at holiday time, upon my release from my illegal incarceration, and when she would decided to stiff Representative Ingbretson and I after he travelled over two hours to supervise the visits.

  6. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] refused to cooperate with Representative Baldasaro and I for him to supervise the visits costing our daughter and I hundreds of visits, therefor causing Representative Ingbretson 4-5 hour round trips to and from his home. [Johnson doesn't mention the fact that Ingbretson runs a successful business which is located in Manchester, the next town over from Londonderry.]

  7. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] refused to allow Representative Baldasaro to be the supervisor because she didn't like that he sponsored my Petition for Redress in the General Court against the Derry Family Division for dozens of egregious abuses and violations of law.

  8. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] did approve of Representative Ingbretson, even though his is Chairman of the Redress Committee and was Chairman of the Redress Caucus which heard the first Petitions against the Derry Family Division, therefor totally invalidating her claim against Representative Baldasaro.

  9. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] has always been routinely up to an hour or more late whether she was picking up or dropping off our daughter.

  10. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] has kept our daughter out of her school to make sure I couldn't get her on my scheduled days.

  11. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted], to this day, stands in open defiance of the Court Order, in contempt, in violation of RSA 633:4.

  12. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] has committed the case history long abuses, parental, alienation, interference of freedom hundreds of times, despite repeated Motions for Contempt by me, without one single action against her by the Court, leaving our daughter to endure the torment.

  13. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted]'s behavior allowance, with the help of her pro bono Attorney, got me jailed for almost ten weeks for a bogus child support Order, when she had much less than fifty percent of the parenting time, in violation of Federal and State child support guidelines, and in absence of the Child Support Guidelines worksheets, which seriously traumatized our daughter and I and our.relationship. I haven't talked to my lovely daughter in over a year.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, that the foregoing, to the best of my knowledge, is true, correct and complete.

Dated: 5/11/11


Affidavit #4:



STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Franklin Family Division, Merrimack County

In The Matter of [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] and David Johnson

2000-M-0407

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

Whereas The Eternal And Unchanging Principles Of The Laws Of Commerce Are:

  1. A matter must be expressed to be resolved.

  2. In Commerce, Truth is sovereign:

  3. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit.

  4. An unrebutted Affidavit stands as Truth in Commerce.

  5. An unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgement in Commerce.

  6. An Affidavit of Truth, under Commercial Law, can only be satisfied:

    1. through a rebuttal Affidavit of Truth, point for point,

    2. by payment,

    3. by agreement,

    4. by resolution by a jury by the rules of Common Law.

  7. All are equal under the Common Law.

The foundation of Commercial Law is based upon certain eternally just, valid, and moral Precepts and Truths, which have remained unchanged for at least six thousand years, having its roots in Mosaic Law. Said Commercial Law forms the underpinnings of Western Civilization, if not all Nations, Law, and Commerce in the world. Commercial Law is non-judicial, and is prior to and superior to, the basis of, and cannot be set aside Or overruled by the statutes of any Governments, Legislatures, Governmental, or Quasi-Governmental agencies, Courts, Judges, and law enforcement agencies, which are under an inherent obligation to uphold said Commercial Law.

KNOW ALL MEN, THAT I CERTIFY IN THIS AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH THAT THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE TRUE, CORRECT, AND COMPLETE:

I, David Johnson, Pro Se, the undersigned, do solemnly swear and affirm, declare, attest, and depose:

  1. That I am of lawful age and am competent to make this Affidavit.

  2. That I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.

  3. That I am not under the lawful guardianship or disability of another.

This sworn Affidavit is made as a matter of record of my own right, pro se, in my own proper status, propia persona.

  1. The custodial or parenting arrangement must be changed because [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] has demonstrated that over the last two years, her abuses have been exactly the same and worse than when she had custody in the very beginning before losing it by manipulating our daughter and I with visitation, communication, abuses of time and people, manipulation of the Courts, and various types of contempt, all creating alienation between our daughter and I.

  2. The abuses against the Child by [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] went on throughout the entire case in 2000, they've been perpetuated by her since the abusive Order of March, 2009, and I 'm confident she'll continue to harm our daughter so long as the Court continues to allows her to have the major portion of the parenting time.

  3. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] has abused her discretion given to her by the Court in denying my visitation with the available supervisor, Representative Baldasaro, for no valid reason whatsoever, which has lasted throughout 2009, 2010, and now well into 2011.

  4. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] has manipulated the Courts. Since the beginning, our daughter's PCP [Primary Care Provider] complained to my attorney about how the health and happiness of our daughter was declining during the period when the parenting schedule was 50/50. We were told by the clinic to ask the Court for full custody. Approximately one day after counsel asked the Court to get the child home to me, [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] somehow alerted the medical personnel at the Parkland Medical center that I was touching or contacting my daughter inappropriately. The G.A.L. at the time said "Oh well, mothers will do that." The Hospital treated our daughter for her diaper shaped infection, many months after I already had her potty trained at home. Approximately one day later, [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] was attempting to try the same accusations again at the Londonderry Police Dept. Lt. Holsworth informed me, " I had to throw her out of here. She was starting to make accusations and attempting to get me to finish her statements. Obviously, she was trying to accuse you of molesting your daughter but wanted me to make the accusation."

  5. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted], and her counsel, attempted to get the Court to believe that I was "incubating" various biological agents in my home to induce infections in our daughter's body so that I could get her treated on the day I picked her up or the day after.

  6. My daughter's PCP came to Court three times and gave a fourth testimony through a deposition to get the child away from the mother.

  7. My daughter's therapist that was found by [Ex-wife's Name Redacted] after the divorce decree, who she tried to use to claim that it was I would not co-parent, came to court twice to get the child away from the mother for a plethora of psychological and emotional stresses that she inflicted against our daughter including but not limited to, the child's complaints about boyfriend abuse, her mother not feeding her when she was hungry, "Mommy told me to tell you that daddy was sleeping naked with me." "Mommy told me to tell you that daddy wouldn't let me allow Lea to sign my cast." "Mom's boyfriends yell at my mom." "Mom's boyfriend called me stupid." "Mom keeps taking the phone away so I can't talk to my dad."

  8. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] took the Child off her prophylaxis treatment so many times that the Clinic had to release our daughter as the PCP told me that their treatment won't work if [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] doesn't cooperate.

  9. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] took our daughter off her medication so many times that recurring infections kept coming until our daughter was no longer treatable with the low strength antibiotics so she needed to go on nitro-furantoin.

  10. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] got the Court to claim that she disagreed with the medical professionals and that I wouldn't listen to opposing opinions.

  11. Everytime [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] took our daughter off the prophylaxis, the new clinics put her back on the medication, including the doctors who got incomplete information from [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted].

  12. Nurse Practioner Holt, Dr. Zinnes, Dr. Das, Dr. Hollander, Dr. Williams, Dr. Chibaro, Nurse Practitioner Romboli, and those hoodwinked by [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted], Dr. Cendron and Dr. Aurora both finally agreed to keep the child on the treatment. The only dissenting opinion was that of [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted].

  13. A gastroenterologist came up with the cure for the Child, which [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] didn't want to follow. We took the child off sugars, high starches, high fructose corn syrups, and cleared the sources for any potential infections.

  14. Today, our daughter is still cleared of the problem.

  15. The gastroenterologist made negative comments which were exaggerated after the NH HealthyKids insurance refused to pay him and the allergist because Wayne MacDonald of the HHS caught [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] committing welfare fraud by claiming the Child lived with her most of the time, when in fact she lived with me most of the time, so the coverage was dropped.

  16. Dr. Silverman instructed me to weigh the child in such a way that she paid it no mind because the child was complaining to him about not getting fed. Similarly, the school kept calling me because [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] was sending the Child to school with no lunch or money.

  17. The Child was going up and down nearly four pounds from one parent to the other. She was losing the weight while with her mother.

  18. The Court kept making the false statements that is was me exposing the Child to litigation while she was having fun bouncing from scale to scale at the Postal Center as she laughed at the numbers.

  19. As a result of these abuses and there are many, many more and the abuses of the G.A.L, who submitted pure hearsay, the March 2009 Order was merely a compilation of

  20. Notably, my "contact" with the medical providers was totally mischaracterized by [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted]'s counsel, for instance, it was I who found and paid for the Child's corrective eyewear with a new doctor. None of the statements about me in that Order are true.

  21. It's easy to see, Judge Michalik merely echoed Master Cross and the hearsay from G.A.L. Wechsler which has caused intolerable damage to our Child and I.

  22. Dr. William Brehm, the HHS Ombudsman can be reached at 603 271 5572 and bbrehm@dhhs.state.nh.us for the information on an impressive and thorough investigation which will prove beyond even a shadow of doubt that all points brought forward here by me are factual and worse than I've stated.

  23. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] has been deceiving the Court through counsel and her own misrepresentations in an efficient and effective manner.

  24. The DCYF and HHS Ombudsman's reports from 2005 and 2006 state many of [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted]'s abuses and invalidate her claims.

  25. The Motion for Petitioner to submit to Psychological Evaluation written by me show clearly the pattern of abuses and violations by [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted].

  26. [Ex-Wife's Name Redacted] is not going to stop these abuses unless our daughter is taken from her custody.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, that the foregoing, to the best of my knowledge, is true, correct and complete.

Dated: 5/11/11





See Also: