PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, ALONG WITH THE PLAINTIFF'S AFFIRMITAVE DEFENSE, AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON THE MERITS AS TO WEATHER WHEN THE TRIAL COURT (ROCHESTER DISTRICT) FOUND THE PLAINTIFF — NOT — GUILTY — THE TRIAL COURT (ROCHESTER DISTRICT) HAD A LEGAL DUTY TO MAKE THE PLAINTIFF HOLE AGAIN BY STRIKING / REMOVING ANY HEARSAY EVIDENCE THAT WAS IN THE TRIAL COURT RECORD IN ANY CRIMINAL COURT PROCEDING WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.
LANDYA B. MCCAFFERTY, District Judge.
In Crawford v. Washington U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scolia Concluded a Constitutional Issue —When HEARSAY EVIDENCE is presented as "Testimonial" in Nature, it is BARRED as a Violation of the Defendants Rights of Confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION —PLAINTIFF'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Plaintiff's Affirmative Defense in this matter is based under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Const. which PREVENTS any HEARSAY EVIDENSE from being introduce into the Trial Court Record in any Criminal Court Proceeding.
In the prior case of State v. Lewis, the County Prosecutor was allowed to introduce the Police Report of Officer Daine which contained HEARSAY EVIDENCE into the Trial Court Record without the need to COMPLY with ANY of the Rules of the Court.
And without the County Prosecutor calling Officer Benjarmin (Primary First Responding Rochester Police Officer at the scene) to the Stand to corroborate the Police Report of Officer Daine, or Prove that Miss Labombard had some-how committed Perjury by lying on the Stand on two different occasions.
First, — At the Hearing to have the Restraining Order Removed.
Second —On the witness Stand at Trial.
The Police Report of Officer Daine is — In-Admissible Evidence and when the Trial Court (Rochester District) Found the Plaintiff Not — Guilty, and although the Plaintiff Represented himself Pro-Se, when the Trial Court, (Rochester District) Found the Plaintiff Not-Guilty — the Trial Court (Rochester District) had a Legal Duty to make the Plaintiff HOLE again, by Striking / Removing the HEARSAY Police Report from the Trial Court Record because this was a CRIMINAL Case.
BLACK LETTER LAW, once the Trial Court (Rochester District) Found the Plaintiff NOT —GUILTY of assaulting Miss Labombard, the Trial Court (Rochester District) had a Legal Duty to make the Plaintiff HOLE again by REMOVING the HEARSAY Police Report of Officer Daine from the Trial Court Record.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION —PROPER SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 USC 1331 because it presents a Federal Question under the Constitution and Laws of the United States on the violation of the Plaintiff's Civil Rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1983, and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution of Due Process, because the Plaintiff cannot ENFORCED in the State Courts such a State Court Right which provide for the Equal Protections and Civil Rights of citizens of the United States.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION—Plaintiff's Objection to Defendants Motion to Dismiss based under Rule # 7 of the N.H. Supreme Court.
PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT/ AFFIRMITAVE DEFENSE
In the original matter of State of N.H. v Lewis in Rochester District Court— The County Prosecutor used her Office to violate the Plaintiff's Constitutional / Civil Rights under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Const. by introducing HEARSAY EVIDENCE (Single Police Report of Officer Daine) into a Criminal Court Proceeding without any Corroboration from any other Rochester Police Officer who was at the scene to Justify PROBABLE CAUSE for the ARREST and INCARCERATION of Mr. Lewis.
And even with the illegal HEARSAY Police Report of Officer Daine was part of the Criminal Court Proceeding, the Trial Court (Rochester District) STILL Found the Plaintiff —Not—Guilty — and once the Trial Court (Rochester District) made that FINAL JUDGMENT on the Merits in a Criminal Court Proceeding, the County Prosecutor had a Legal Duty to make the Plaintiff HOLE again, by REMOVING any HEARSAY EVIDENSE that was in the Trial Court Record as a matter of Law.
Under Rule # 7 of the N.H. Supreme Court he N.H. Supreme Court, without Being REVERSED or AMENDED by the N.H. Supreme Court, the Court Found the Plaintiff NOT-GUILTY, and that FINAL JUDGMENT becomes the FINAL JUDGMENT on the Merits issued by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction, and under the N.H. Constitution's Two Court System, Strafford County Superior Court is NOT an Appellate Court for the State of New Hampshire, and is Barred /Controlled under the N.H. Const. Two Court System and the Doctrine of Res judicata and Collaterial Estopple from Re-litigating any issue on the Merits of FINAL JUDGMENT ISSUED in Rochester District Court as a matter of Law.
The N.H. Const. makes it very CLEAR that Strafford County Superior Court is NOT a Appellate Court for the State of New Hampshire, and has NO Legal Jurisdiction to Re-litigate any Issue on the Merits of the Prior case, in which the Plaintiff was Found Not-Guilty —Because as a Superior Court for the State of New Hampshire the ONLY PROPER SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION that Strafford County Superior Court had was in the amount of DAMAGES Awarded to the Plaintiff from the listed Defendant's for violated the Plaintiff's Civil Right under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Const. by placing HEARSAY EVIDENCE (Police Report of Officer Daine) into the Trial Court Record without any corroboration from any other Rochester Police Officer who was at the Scene.
Once the Trial Court (Rochester District) Found the Plaintiff NOT-GUILTY the Trial Court (Rochester District) had a Legal Duty to make the Plaintiff HOLE again, which would Require the Trial Court (Rochester District) to Completely Remove any HEARSAY EVIDENSE from the Trial Court Record as a matter of Law.
Therefore, as a matter of Constitutional Law, any JUDGMENT, VERDICT or DECREE in any Court (State / Federal) including STRAFFORD COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT in which the HEARSAY Police Report of Officer Daine was Still a part of the Trial Court Record are all MOOT, VOID because under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Const. —HEARSAY EVIDENSE is Not Admissible in any Criminal Court Proceeding, and therefore MUST be REMOVED under Black Letter Law because its FRUIT from the Poisonous Tree, and violates the Plaintiff's Civil Rights.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION — PLAINTIFF STATES A CLAIM— First, without the Defendant's alleging any type of JUDICIAL, OFFICIAL or MUNICIPAL IMMUNITY in the matter, the Defendants WAIVES any Rights to Re-Litigate any issue on the Merits of IMMUNITY in the Case, and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Const. PREVENTS any HEARSAY EVIDENSE from being introduce into any Criminal Court Proceeding.
Complaint alleges DAMAGES as a Direct Result of the Actions of the listed Defendants, the County Prosecutor was able to use her Office as a County Prosecutor to violate the Plaintiff's Sixth Amendments Rights by placing HEARSAY EVIDENSE (Police Report of Officer Daine) into the Trial Record in a Criminal Court Proceeding —But the Trial Court (Rochester District) Still Found the Plaintiff NOT-GUILTY, and as a Court of Competent Proper Subject Matter Jurisdiction, the Trial Court (Rochester District) had a LEGAL DUTY to REMOVE/STRIKE any HEARSAY EVIDENCE from the Trial Court Record that did NOT qualify under Rule # 81 of the Hearsay Exception Rule as a matter of Constitutional Law.
And with the HEARSAY Police Report of Officer Daine REMOVED from the TRIAL COURT RECORD —The Trial Court Record will show that the Plaintiff was DAMAGED by an Unconstitutional Act committed by the listed Governmental Agents of False Arrest / False Imprisonment" and Malicious Prosecution, also the violation of the Plaintiff's Civil Rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the O.J.P. Program Statute —which prohibits both individual instances and patterns of Practice of Discriminatory Misconduct of UNJUSTIFIABLE ARREST.
Wherefore — The Plaintiff Respectfully Request for this Honorable Court to
(#1) DENY the Defendants Motion to Dismiss.
(#2) Schedule this Case for Jury Trial as Requested by the Plaintiff.
