vin's email to noether

2
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: V B Date:04/11/2015 11:17 AM (GMT05:00) To: "Noether, Lauren" Subject: Re: Right to Know request Motion to Quash Attorney Noether: First and foremost, you know exactly who Ms. Toop is. You were included in an email forwarded by Dawn Howe on November 25. 2014and that was submitted, under oath to the Attorney Discipline Office. That email included a 6 page letter written by Vicki Quiram telling me I was about to become another Kevin Guay or Chartier victim. You were aware I was being provided false information by the claim I was responsible for my septic system, which is only operational because of Michael Bedard and Robert Machain, the NH Water Well Board, and DES Staff. I was being threatened with enforcement action that could not legally be taken for a continuing violation committed by Michael Bedard, a septic installer, & Robert Machainboth regulated by NHDES. In addition to NHDES staff failing to comply with the regulations they are obligated to uphold. RSA 643:1 1. You have outright failed to comply with my RighttoKnow request for a copy of the DATE STAMPED SUBPOENA requiring Richard Schofield's "expert testimony." Instead, you emailed me a copy of a Subpoena Duces Tecum, which ONLY requires Richard Schofield to PRODUCE DOCUMENTS. Where is the Subpoena that compelled you to write such a glowing review for Michael Bedard's schemewhich a Judge ruled on. 2. So there is no confusion, and you don't attempt to deceive me: "A subpoena duces tecum is used to compel the production of documents that might be admissible before the court. It cannot be used to requ produced." 3. The envelope shows your letter was mailed from the SAME EXACT PITNEY BOWES MACHINE USED BY THE DES LEGAL DEPARTMENT, which is 2 miles away from Capitol Street. 4. According to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 45 (B) (1)Michael Bedard is a Party to the court action and cannot serve his own subpoena . 5. The Subpoena Duces Tecum has the action in Merrimack County. NO Subpoena came out of Carroll County where the action is pending. 6. A JUDGE Ruled on your motion to quash, which is contrary to what the Subpoena you responded to. You failed to make any note that you were answering a Subpoena Duces Tecum. 7. That check is irrelevant, and Richard Schofield's fees are not the same as a Police Officer. $24 is the required fee. I can also write a check today and post date it. Since the check was returned, why do you still have it? I may subpoena his records showing the numerical sequence of his checks. 8. During our telephone conversation, you outright stated you had did not have a copy of the subpoena, but sent "something to me." SUDDENLY there's a FILE ON THIS. However, your words are true, because you failed to provide me with a copy of the Subpoena I had requested, proving Richard Schofield was to testify as an expert witness. 9. You have a copy of a March 18, 2015 letter with your signature. Yet you don't have a signed copy of a Motion to Quash that you filed in a court of law. However, your signature on your letter does not match what is on the motion you filed. Re: Right to Know request Motion to Quash 8 minutes ago 10:21 AM From venzo50 To Audra

Upload: brockomegabitch

Post on 16-Aug-2015

216 views

Category:

Documents


4 download

TRANSCRIPT

4/11/2015 iCloudMailhttps://www.icloud.com/message/current/enus/#view?guid=message%3AINBOX%2F12547 1/2SentfrommyVerizonWireless4GLTEsmartphoneOriginalmessageFrom:VBDate:04/11/201511:17AM(GMT05:00)To:"Noether,Lauren"Subject:Re:RighttoKnowrequestMotiontoQuashAttorneyNoether:Firstandforemost,youknowexactlywhoMs.Toopis.YouwereincludedinanemailforwardedbyDawnHoweonNovember25.2014andthatwassubmitted,underoathtotheAttorneyDisciplineOffice.Thatemailincludeda6pageletterwrittenbyVickiQuiramtellingmeIwasabouttobecomeanotherKevinGuayorChartiervictim.YouwereawareIwasbeingprovidedfalseinformationbytheclaimIwasresponsibleformysepticsystem,whichisonlyoperationalbecauseofMichaelBedardandRobertMachain,theNHWaterWellBoard,andDESStaff.IwasbeingthreatenedwithenforcementactionthatcouldnotlegallybetakenforacontinuingviolationcommittedbyMichaelBedard,asepticinstaller,&RobertMachainbothregulatedbyNHDES.InadditiontoNHDESstafffailingtocomplywiththeregulationstheyareobligatedtouphold.RSA643:11.YouhaveoutrightfailedtocomplywithmyRighttoKnowrequestforacopyoftheDATESTAMPEDSUBPOENArequiringRichardSchofield's"experttestimony."Instead,youemailedmeacopyofaSubpoenaDucesTecum,whichONLYrequiresRichardSchofieldtoPRODUCEDOCUMENTS.WhereistheSubpoenathatcompelledyoutowritesuchaglowingreviewforMichaelBedard'sschemewhichaJudgeruledon.2.Sothereisnoconfusion,andyoudon'tattempttodeceiveme:"Asubpoenaducestecumisusedtocompeltheproductionofdocumentsthatmightbeadmissiblebeforethecourt.Itcannotbeusedtorequireproduced."3.TheenvelopeshowsyourletterwasmailedfromtheSAMEEXACTPITNEYBOWESMACHINEUSEDBYTHEDESLEGALDEPARTMENT,whichis2milesawayfromCapitolStreet.4.AccordingtoFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,45(B)(1)MichaelBedardisaPartytothecourtactionandcannotservehisownsubpoena.5.TheSubpoenaDucesTecumhastheactioninMerrimackCounty.NOSubpoenacameoutofCarrollCountywheretheactionispending.6.AJUDGERuledonyourmotiontoquash,whichiscontrarytowhattheSubpoenayourespondedto.YoufailedtomakeanynotethatyouwereansweringaSubpoenaDucesTecum.7.Thatcheckisirrelevant,andRichardSchofield'sfeesarenotthesameasaPoliceOfficer.$24istherequiredfee.Icanalsowriteachecktodayandpostdateit.Sincethecheckwasreturned,whydoyoustillhaveit?Imaysubpoenahisrecordsshowingthenumericalsequenceofhischecks.8.Duringourtelephoneconversation,yououtrightstatedyouhaddidnothaveacopyofthesubpoena,butsent"somethingtome."SUDDENLYthere'saFILEONTHIS.However,yourwordsaretrue,becauseyoufailedtoprovidemewithacopyoftheSubpoenaIhadrequested,provingRichardSchofieldwastotestifyasanexpertwitness.9.YouhaveacopyofaMarch18,2015letterwithyoursignature.Yetyoudon'thaveasignedcopyofaMotiontoQuashthatyoufiledinacourtoflaw.However,yoursignatureonyourletterdoesnotmatchwhatisonthemotionyoufiled.Re:RighttoKnowrequestMotiontoQuash8minutesago10:21AMFrom venzo50To Audra4/11/2015 iCloudMailhttps://www.icloud.com/message/current/enus/#view?guid=message%3AINBOX%2F12547 2/2YoucanexplainthistotheJudgeinSuperiorCourt.YouareinviolationoftheRighttoKnowRequest,youreceivedonMarch16,2015viacertifiedmail.RulesofCivilProcedurewereamendedandbecameeffectiveDecember31,2013.Youshouldknowthis,asyoutakeCEclasses.OnFriday,April10,201512:20PM,"Noether,Lauren"wrote:DearMr.Pellino,TheletterImailedtoyouonMarch18,2015withthedocumentsrespondingtoyourRSA91ArequestdatedMarch12,2015wasreturnedbythepostofficeasnotdeliverableasaddressedandunabletoforward.ThisexplainswhyyoudidnotreceiveitasyoutoldmeinourphonecallonApril6,2015.Theletter,aswellasmysubsequentletterofApril6thresendingthisMarch18,2015letteranddocuments,andalettertoyoufromAssociateAttorneyGeneralAnneEdwardswassentto43AtlanticAve.,Saugus,MA01906.Thisistheaddressyougaveonyourcorrespondence.Believingthatthesubsequentlettersmorerecentlymailedbythisofficemayalsobereturned,Ihavescannedthevariousletters,includingthereturnedenvelopesoIcouldattachthemelectronicallyhere.Ihopethatyoureceivetheminthisemailwithoutdifficulty.PleasenotethatImistypedtheyearinmypriorletterswhichshouldhaveobviouslybeen2015,not2014astheycurrentlyread.Iapologizeforanyinconveniencethatmayhavecaused.Sincerely,LaurenNoether________________________________________LaurenNoetherSeniorAssistantAttorneyGeneral33CapitolStreetConcord,NH03301Phone(603)2713679Fax(603)2236283Theinformationcontainedinthiselectronicmessageandanyattachmentstothismessagemaycontainconfidentialorprivilegedinformationandisintendedfortheexclusiveuseoftheaddressee(s).PleasenotifytheAttorneyGeneral'sOfficeimmediatelyat(603)2713658orreplytojustice@doj.nh.govifyouarenottheintendedrecipientanddestroyallcopiesofthiselectronicmessageandanyattachments.