09 January 2008

Republican NH AG Kelly Ayotte fumes as Barack Obama supports KingCast message of Transparent, accountable government in the Franconia shooting tragedy

Senator Obama brings a message of open and transparent government to the American Public and he is most certainly being heard. KingCast is doing the exact same thing and will be heard and broadcasted regarding tomorrow's oral argument on Thursday, 10 Jan 2008. We will press on regardless of State Rep. Martha McLeod's absurd attempts with HB 1428 to deify a bully cop named Bruce McKay, who terrorized Liko Kenney and others in the North Country, sometimes with a knife near the labia.

Grafton State Rep Edmond Gionet clearly supports the KingCast position as noted by his 8 Jan. 2008 email.

Related short film: Bruce McKay was a bully cop.

Barack Obama: “So I’m benefiting from what the Moses generation did. The question is whether the Joshuas among us are willing to stand up, are willing to be counted, are willing to vote, are willing to organize, are willing to mobilize, are willing to get going.”

KingCast: Making a Difference for little people for years.

Barack Obama: "Our government must be transparent and open and responsive to the people."

KingCast: "Without the First Amendment, anything you have -- the framework of Justice itself.... is illusory." KingCast short film "American Lawyer One."

Related comment from John Edwards on the bad corporate citizens: "You can't nice these people to death.... they'll run through you like a freight train."

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hooray! It was all good today, 1/10/08. Thank you, Chris....thank you.

Anonymous said...

This - from a poster at Topix today:

"King kicked ass today in Haverhill. Totally outclassed Mullen and the AG's crew in form AND substance. The judge gave Chris ample opportunity to present his points and to counter the defendents arguments. For those that doubt Chris's skills in a Court, better to have him on your side than be opposing him.

Based upon body language, judges line of questioning, and intuition, Chris will win many of his points against the town, and will at best split with the State on those issues.

Best admission of the day, Mullen admits the town does have the Sara OC spraying dash cam tape (how long ago was that asked for?) and the town's defense for being continuously tardy and asking for overtime pay was Franconia has only limited resources. Last time I checked RSA91A didn't make staffing exceptions.


Nice summary - and accurate!

Lifer said...

There are times in life when you roll the dice and go with your gut regardless of what others proclaim.

I did that with Chris, trusted my instinct, and believed in his sincerity to his First Amendment causes.

Today I (and many others) had our faith in Chris rewarded. His presence and command in the coutroom was outstanding, a consumate professional.

The naysayers said it was all about King and money, he was a carnival barker, a huckster, and worse. Well he talked the talk, and HE WALKED THE WALK.

Well done Mr King, even if the judge's ruling is entirely unfavorable (hard to see that outcome), you have given Franconia a gift. The seeds of mistrust and loathing that Bruce McKay, the town, and the AG have planted here are now overshadowed by hope, healing, and a restored faith in human nature.

Thank you

Anonymous said...

Lifer, good to hear your thoughts. Any idea how long a decision will take?

Lifer said...

br, sorry I don't. I'm sure Chris will have a feel for that, I think I may have overheard 10 days?

I can't think of how the proceeding could have been played out any more favorable for Chris. The Judge was attentive, gave Chris all the time he needed and allowed Chis to respond to the defendent's arguments. At every instance Chris responded on point and used his natural ability to connect and persuade.

I can't predict the outcome, but as the filmed proceeding will show, this was all about making the Government transparent and accontable, and not a Kingcast side show.

It was gratifying to watch and I am proud of what Chris has accomplished so far.

Anonymous said...

Thursday, January 10, 2008

So here is the lone Chris King citizen plaintiff complaining to the honorable Judge Timothy Vaughn about “freedom of information” and “right to know”, at one table, and defendants Town of Franconia, NH state Attorney General, and their representatives at another table. I thought the book was shut on that dark episode of north country history. What “information”, what does Chris King want to know? Are they holding something back, some vital information. Why would the state want to be secretive. This is not Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia of secret police and “camps”.
So they argue on, back and forth, request for this, dilatory that, use of force report, “dog ate my homework”, all on the tax payers money, our tax dollars!? Is all this important? I believe it is. For example, the state releases Mr. Floyd within a short period of time and holds the video tapes for a long time. I feel they should have done the opposite: held Mr. Floyd and released unadulterated video and copies immediately to the public. Many other people are plagued by dark questions and insecurities. What Mr. King seems to be doing is looking for answers to some hard questions and with a backdrop not of ubiquitous money but just basic civil rights. For this Chris King should be commended.

Anonymous said...

A privilege to be in attendance. Chris offered an impressive and exceptionally well prepared argument. His unwavering position and confidence is driven by his passion for the truth.
This was a somber but hopeful day. Your promises were kept and delivered, Chris. We'll await good news.

Christopher King said...

Thanks to all.

Through all of our various talents and spirit we are really making a change here.

Watch for the video, audio and the OC Spray dash cam video soon.

Namaste.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully people will understain many of the concerns of today rights, and give justice to the people no matter of the color of the person. It seems as if chris is a good man, and has a very good intelligent mind, and has commonsince, people can have good education but do they have commonsince ? that is a answer.

Christopher King said...

B,

You are are bright man as well, thank you for the compliment.

I want to help you and I will help you I'm just flat out right now.

Do not stop writing and keep in touch.

I will email you now I am finally home.

-c

Christopher King said...

How funny as I'm writing the last comment B calls me at home.

It's a Due Process issue.

-c

Anonymous said...

Kelly Ayotte is aware that Jeanne Kincaid has been using the name and address of my employers via the background check, to place pressure on other white employers to cause them to terminate my job for the past 2 years. i have brought this to the attention of Anthony Blenkinsop, and asked for an investigation, and this has fell on deaf ears. Ity is because I am A NEGRO. MS AYOTTE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RACIST AND SHE HAS SEVERAL RACIST FRIENDS ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL BENCH. MS. AYOTTE HAS CONDONE THE ABUSE OF MY 10 YR OLD SON BY CAROL SOUCY PRINCIPAL HOOKSETT MEMORIAL SCHOOL, AND, THE VIOLATION OF OUR PRIVACY WHEN KIMBERLY CHABOT AND LINDA WAR HALL ATTENDED OUR DUE PROCESS HEARING...A HEARING BEING "HOSTED" BY PETER FOLEY HEARING OFFICER WHO SENT ME PORN VIA THE INTERNET! JUDGE MUIRHEAD IS TRYING HIS BEST TO QUASH THIS. HE IS A KKK MASQUERADING IN BLACK. HE IS A LIAR, HE ENGAGES IN CASE FIXINGS, AND HE IS A RACIST.

Christopher King said...

11:09

Can you email me at

kingjurisdoctor@yahoo.com

The way Kelly came at me was so absurd I thought it was racist too and the NAACP got in bed with her, a good case for miscegenation laws, yah.

Anonymous said...

PROLOGUE TO COMPLAINT: 300.511 WAS VIOLATED
LACK OF IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

AND

It is noted, that I am submitting the document: PARENT’S RESPONSE TO SCHOOL DISTRICT HEARING REQUEST IN ITS ENTIRETY, ALONG WITH MY ORIGINAL DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT, TO BE INCLUDED ALONG WITH THIS, and CURRENT COMPLAINT. INDEED, THEY ARE PART OF THIS CURRENT COMPLAINT. THE HEARING OFFICER PETER FOLEY DID NOT LOOK AT MY REQUEST AT ALL.(SEE HIS HEARING ORDER DATED MAY 11, WHICH I RECIVED AND SIGNED FOR ON MAY 18TH, 2007). FURTHERMORE, HE HAS BEEN SENDING ME PORNOGRAPHY VIA EMAIL, AND MADE A HUMONGOUS MISTAKE WHEN HE SENT ME ONE WITH HIS EMAIL ADDRESS; ALBEIT BY MISTAKE! I BROUGHT THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF SARAH BROWNING (Special Assistant to the Commissioner) WHO TOLD ME SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT IT WAS PROBABLY A VIRUS. I DID NOT KNOW THAT VIRUSES WERE THAT STUPID! I CONTACTED THE FBI, AND THEY FORWARDED MY COMPLAINT TO THE HOOKSETT POLICE DEPARTMENT WHERE A DETECTIVE CALLED ME. I DECLINED HIS “HELP.” CONTINUING ON, I CONTACTED THE STATE POLICE HOPING THAT FINALLY I WOULD GET SOME HELP, ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT MY TOWN’S CAPACITY EXCEEDS 3,000 AND BY LAW THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION. SOON, YOU WILL SEE WHY I DECLINED THE HELP OF THE TOWN’S POLICE; (You will soon see why when you read complaint #2)). THIS IS THE SAME INSTITUTION THAT THE SCHOOL USED TO HARASSED, INTIMIDATE, AND TO VIOLATE AND DENY ME OF MY CIVIL RIGHTS. HOW COULD I TRUST THEM AT ALL?
YOU WILL SEE AGAIN, AND AGAIN, THE HEARING OFFICER PETER FOLEY IGNORED THE INJUSTICE THAT WAS DONE TO MY SON…INFACT, HE CONDONED IT. YOU WILL SEE HOW HE ALLOWED THE HOOKSETT PROSECUTOR, AND A POLICE WITH A LOADED GUN, TO COME TO MY SON’S DUE PROCESS HEARING AS THEY SAT IN A ROOM ADJACENT TO THE HEARING AND CONVENED WITH HIM, THE SCHOOL’S ATTORNEY, AND PARTY FROM THE SCHOOL DURING THE BREAKS OF THE HEARING. YOU WILL SEE WHAT THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT HAD TO SAY ABOUT THIS CONDUCT, (IN RELATION TO THOSE ATTENDING ONLY). YOU WILL SEE WHETHER IT’S CUSTOMARY OR NOT! YOU WILL SEE HOW MS. KINCAID AND MS. SOUCY VIOLATED MY RIGHTS, AND MY SON’S RIGHTS AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN!.....THE ONLY WAY THIS NEGRESS KNEW HOW TO DEAL WITH EVIL, IS TO BRING IT OUT INTO THE OPEN. YOU WILL SEE HOW I OPENELY INCLUDED MANY PEOPLE SO THAT THEY MAY BEAR WITNESS TO THE INJUSTICE! I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE WITH ME, INDEED MANY OF THEM MAY NOT BE ENDDEARING OF NEGROES, NEVERTHELESS, I AM COUNTING ON THEIR CONSCIOUS (if there is any)!


Count 1: VIOLATION OF 300.121; 300.342;
LACK OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IEP):NH Ed 1109.05: PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS AND OTHER ISSUES

Supporting Facts: I shall now make quotes from my former attorney Raymond Foss:
“Okay. The …My position for my client is that the…the problem is that the word “syllabus” is not in the IEP. It is true, my client has repeatedly said the word “syllabus.”The word “syllabus” is not in the IEP, but the functional equivalent of it is in the IEP. (My emphasis). (Pre-Hearing Conference, 2/2/2007, pg.5). (I shall briefly quote Mr. Foss from an email of his, to Jeanne Kincaid dated January 9, 2007: “Under the section, other, in the IEP it states in the 3rd paragraph that: Classroom teacher(s) and specialists (e.g. health) will provide parent with information and concepts, topics for discussion/instruction, key vocabulary and/or copies of reading selections in the areas of science, social studies and health in advance or concurrent with instruction).” And it was not deemed that in terms of sufficiency against what the language of the IEP is irrespective of what IDEA says. The IEP team came up with language as to what this child needed and the…the language that is there, if implemented would meet the needs of Joshua and my client would not have brought forward a…” “Until the week of…I guess the week after November 30th…The week after November 30th and from there forward that provision is being met. But it was not for…for three years of this child’s education because the ability of the parent to reinforce the daily assignment of the child in a way that would help him overcome his disability was not being met. Even…There was an evolution over the course of the Fall of 2006, (way after the state’s not impartial investigator Joanne Esau) had exited, to finally sending a “week-at-a-glance” (their term, because they did not want to use my word syllabus) to me, on Fridays of the preceding week. And this was after I engaged attorney Foss, and after several years of struggle. You will soon see that George Wallace stood in the door-way!
(Raymond Foss, my former attorney at the Pre-Hearing conference document, pgs 5, & 6 respectively 2/2/2007).
Let me take a moment to note a few things from Hearing Officer Foley’s Order from the Hearing, entitled; “Findings of Fact:” pg2 # (1) “ Joshua H. was born on November 13, 1996.” UNTRUE, Joshua P.E. (H) was born on November 1st 1996. His name is Joshua, not Jason, pg6 # 21. Mr. Foley had the school’s exhibit, which list the child’s birth-certificate. Again on pg 3 #10, of this Fact-Finding mission it is noted, and I quote, “ Over the course of the next three years Joshua continued to make progress in the classroom despite receiving no specially designed instruction.” But pray tell, why then, did he continue to receive 2s in the very area where the speech therapy was supposed to make a difference?: INDEED THIS WAS THE VERY FIRST TIME THAT HE RECEIVED A “3” IN THIS AREA. I CALL IT A LIBERAL 3 (A PHONY 3), BECAUSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. MS. ROY WAS UNDER PRESSURE TO DISH OUT THE THREE. There are many other so-call facts that are really falsehoods, you will see through such.
I have been asking for a syllabus since Josh was in the First grade. The purpose of the syllabus is two-fold; (1) to help reinforce concepts and ideas, and (2) to monitor what was being taught to my son, now that he was no longer in Catholic school. During the school year 2005, my son was involved in a “health-science” course of which I knew nothing of. I only discovered the reality of this course when he was in the throes of an exam: Obviously, if I had that syllabus, I would have known of this course. Josh for the very first time, came home with material of which he had to know by the next day. Everything I imagined surely came to pass….but cramming was nothing new. This course was, however. As could be expected, he did poorly. No opportunity for me to intervene before this occurred.
The syllabus was supposed to stop this from happening. (Please see my email to Ms. Perra, case manager 1/24/06 regarding this course), Also for one example of cramming, (and this was a constant), see my email to former attorney Foss, Feb 5, 2007.
Always I brought up the subject of the syllabus at every IEP meeting, and always I was promised that it would come home prior to the beginning of each New Year. Always I was disappointed. Still I attended these meetings peacefully. There were never any shouting matches, or “bad feelings”….I tried to convey my best, and always hoped that the case manager and speech therapist Jacqueline Perra would honor what she agreed to. Regretfully, it did not occur to me, to bring along a friend, family member, or tape- recorder. I was therefore surprised when I would later learn from a state investigator
Joanne Esau, that there was never any mention of the word syllabus in the minutes from the meetings. I knew that Ms Perra had an issue at one point with the word syllabus…she thought that it was too formal. You will notice that Ms. Soucy did mention the word “syllabus” to me in her response to me (email of 9/5/2006….I am certain, quite by accident). You will see that after I told her that I had received the assignments (after much frustration) and way after the first assignment in class had been given out, Ms Soucy would email me the class schedule, (which had already been sent home), and she was aware of this, but you will soon see her tricks at play, for this over-correction in sending home items she knew were just sent home instead of the dates and times was meant to frustrate me only further: It was only later when my former attorney revealed what she said, did all these years of frustration come to fruition. Dates and Times are essential items of a syllabus; for how was I supposed to help Josh? (See my email to Ms. Soucy of 9/5/2006). Not knowing when something will be gone over? What to study, and when?
But I was beginning to understand the rules of the game: Frustrate, Delay, and Deny! You will see that I assessed correctly. (My email). Her statement to Mr. Foss had not been uttered yet…….but then, it was!
Certainly I believed that anyone taking minutes of a meeting (in good faith) would document what transpired in those meetings, and every year, and at all those IEP meetings I asked for a syllabus. I used the word “Syllabus” sooo many times, unless certain words/phrases were taboo.
The “investigation” by Joanne Esau was not an investigation, but a far, far cry from any professional and objective report I have yet to be aware of indeed until this time. The mission starts out with the premise that the parent is wrong, and how do we prove this? It is my contention that The Conspiracy begins with the Department of Education. This institution have their home-bred Detectors that initiates the dirty work. This Dirty-work then, is the Kindling for the real work to come…contractors with certain law firms throughout the state, and these people, as was the case here with Jeannie Kincaid, and Peter Foley, (the latter “home-grown”) they site again, and again the incredible inaccuracy, and out-right lies of Joanne Esau. These college educated officers of the court take everything for granted. But do not mis-understand, for it is not laziness or inadequacy, but a purposeful and well-planned end-game. The type that culminates in the hand-shake, wink-wink, nodge-nodge deal: The goal here is to overwhelm, lie, and intimidate parents and their attorneys. Regardless of what happens DUE PROCESS MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COST! Of course every once-in-a-while, they come across with someone like myself, and then the goal becomes: DESTROY: CAUSE FIRINGS, HARRASS WITH PHONE-CALLS; SPAM AND VIRUS THEM INTO SUBMISSION. like the Clinton machine in Little-Rock, we will bleed you…..and you may die!
Lawyers for the other side are FULLY AWARE OF THE ATMOSPHERE, FOR THEY ARE intimidated into submission. REMEMBER, TIS THE STATE THAT HAS THE FUNDS….THE TAX-PAYER FUNDS AT THEIR DISPOSAL: AND, IF YOU WANT TO WORK IN THIS STATE, ADVISE YOUR CLIENT TO SUBMIT.
THIS BULLYING IS COMMON PLACE WITHIN CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS, SPECIAL EDUCATION, AND ELEMENTARY EDUCATION……PUBLIC EDUCATION! (HERE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE). THE BUSY BEES SEND OUT THEIR SIGNALS VIA FRIENDS AND AQUIANTANCES OF ATTORNEYS…THE PRESSURE IS ON! THE STATISTICS BEAR THIS OUT AGAIN, AND AGAIN.
It does not matter what the local school Districts are accuse of doing, what matters is that the state wins. Educating kids…..if it happens, it does, if it doesn’t happen, then it doesn’t. This is a beauracracy onto itself, with slogans, and sayings, get-togethers and Séances; superficiality, titles, and entitlement.
Now every, every professional investigator MEETS with the victim/perpetrator. I have never met with Joanne Esau, but why bother? You may lose sight of the mission, the mandate: It is better that you go to the school, meet the principal et al for reinforcement! Indeed she did not bother to ask Ms. Dubisz, or Ms. Ux for copies of what they were sending home to parent (according to IEP & syllabus), but why do this? Again you may lose site of the mission!
Ms Esau did not want to know: She had a set of ideas that were going to fit into her scheme of how things are, and should be. Indeed she has never seen the “Week at-a-glance Document, (it was not in existence when she was there)! The Summaries from Ms. Dubisz, and Ms. Ux were there a-plenty….think the good Ms. Esau wanted to know? What this dear woman addresses, indeed she made copies of for her report, is the class schedule of events..You know English at 10: AM, Science at 11:00AM. By reading parts of her misguided report, one would believe that every child in Ms. Roy’s class had an IEP/syllabus. Of-course, I wish this was so: In my email to everyone, I advocated that ALL CHILDREN ARE ENTITLED TO A SYLLABUS. I shall include that email as well.
Let me quote Joanne Esau, she “got the ball rolling” as she detests Rush Limbaugh….this will be expanded upon in complaint #2: The IEP (8/30/06-6/30/07) Background statement reads”…Joshua’s mother requests frequent communication from the educational team about the content of the weekly curriculum, as well as any behaviour concerns, so that she can reinforce instruction and expectations at home.” (Joanne Esau, Dec 1, 2006 Document with the NH state seal; pg. 7. Let me say that thank God that quote was not attributed to me….in that I did not say that I wanted weekly communication from the educational team. LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR. WHAT I WANTED WAS A SYLLABUS WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE TOPICS OF A GIVEN SUBJECT BEING COVERED THAT WEEK, WITH THE APROXIMATE DATES FOR COVERAGE, AND PAGES, AND HANDOUTS IF APPLICABLE. THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR WEEKLY COMMUNICATION IF THIS INFORMATION WAS BEING SENT HOME. THIS WOULD BE COMMUNICATION ENOUGH! I COULD GO OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER, PARTICULARLY READING COMPREHENSION: THERE IN THE QUIET OF MY HOME WITH CHOPIN IN THE BACKGROUND, AND WITH A MOTHER’S PATIENCE, I COULD EXPLAIN CONTEXT CLUES TO LOOK FOR WHEN ANSWERING QUESTIONS; LOOKING AT SURROUNDING WORDS FOR MEANING & CLUES, AND A VARIETY OF THINGS.
JOSH DID WELL IN MATH AND SCIENCE, BUT EVEN SCIENCE INVOLVES COMPREHENDING, UNDERSTANDING THE DIRECTIONS FOR EXPERIMENTS; FOR THE STUDY OF HABITAT AND CREATURES. MERELY LOVING THE SUBJECT WAS NOT ENOUGH. JOSH HAD TO UNDERSTAND. I AM THAT MOTHER, WILLING, AND INVESTING IN MY CHILD. SINCE HE IS A CHILD, AND NEED TO PLAY, I ALSO HAD/HAVE TO BE CREATIVE
THE VERY, VERY SAD FACT IS, HERE IS THIS INVESTIGATOR (I PRESUME AN INTELLIGENT PERSON), AND SHE COULD NOT PICK UP, THAT THIS WAS THE SYLLABUS THAT SHE WAS SPEAKING OF! THIS IS REALLY QUITE SAD. THIS LACK OF COMMON SENSE. MS. ESAU WANTED TO SEE THE WORD SYLLABUS. I SUSPECT SHE WAS TOO CAUGHT UP IN MY POLITICS. TOO BUSY DENYING THAT EVEN I, A NEGRESS, HAVE THAT RIGHT TO BE A REPUBLICAN! WELL MS. ESAU, IF THE INFORMATION YOU READ DID WHAT I ASKED FOR, THEN, THAT WAS THE SYLLABUS. BUT, YOU MADE AN ERROR. YOU SHOULD HAVE ASKED MS. SOUCY OR MS. ROY, OR MS. PERRA, TO GIVE YOU A COPY OF WHAT THEY WERE SENDING HOME WITH JOSH. THEN, YOU SHOULD HAVE COMPARED IT WITH THE LANGUAGE YOU NOTED!
“At the 5/23/05 meeting it was agreed that the team would meet on September 13th to discuss curriculum materials.” (Joanne Esau, Dec 1st Document, pg 7). Ms. Esau, were you there? This is a fabrication. There was never such meeting set up! Did you ask Ms. Perra, Ms. Ux and Ms. Polak (the latter taking notes for Ms. Perra) if such a meeting was called? This is pure fabrication on either Ms. Esau, or Ms. Soucy’s part to add some credibility to a story: THIS SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE! Ms. Soucy was never a member of my child’s IEP team! I called this meeting directly to Ms. Soucy, and independently of the team. What another convenient lie! I remember her asking me, what was the subject of the meeting, and I told her that I would address it, when I came in person. She is aware of this! I had sent her an email, of which I wanted to put it within context: It had nothing to do with Joshua’s IEP! But I became so upset by this surprise that my son came home with an assignment at the beginning of the school year, and AGAIN FOR THE 100TH TIME! NO SYLLABUS! In fact, I told her that I would not be coming to the Open-Day, VIA EMAIL, AND BY TELEPHONE….did not care to meet the teacher, or ever set foot there again! This lie, this lack of implementation had gone on for 3 long years, and I had had enough!
I could go on and on, about what appears to me to be DELIBERATE LIES. Let me make one more point, and be done with this: The principal’s email to me of 9/06/07 was an email of let’s play catch-up. If I had not responded this way, it would have been business as usual! “THIS E-MAIL ALSO STATED THAT THE PRINCIPAL WOULD MEET WITH TEACHERS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFF ASAP TO REVIEW THE PARENT’S CONCERNS AND WORK TO ADDRESS THEM.” (Joanne Esau, Dec 1, 2006 letter with NH seal, pg 7). (BUT WE MUST TURN TO 300.342, FOR THE ANSWERS).
Always, we must keep in the fore-front of the cerebrum: “SHE WAS THE ONLY PARENT ASKING FOR A SYLLABUS.” (FOSS) ‘WAS SHE WRONG IN
ASKING FOR SUCH”? Silence, silence, silence! (Is the reply). I know what I have experienced on the behalf of son!
In the second and third grade, I received a summary of what the teacher may go over in class that week; (not of time, and dates, and still no copies of reading selections…hand-outs). But even these summaries did not come home at the beginning of the school year which one would expect, and which was told to me they would; usually, I would have to email, or call the school, all upset that I have not received them, and then, they would (in this pretend mode) rush them out to me. This naturally, created anger, frustration and vexation for this parent: So much so, that being of a conservative bent, I began to let them know (via my emails) what I thought of Liberals and the public school system in America. These Summaries were superficial and never helpful. They were not what I asked for.
My son was diagnosed with ADHD, by his neurologist Dr. Karl Kuban, (NEMC Boston, Now at Boston Medical Center), and with Speech Delay, and Auditory Processing Issues, by Jacqueline Perra, speech therapist. In light of these diagnoses then, Josh often missed parts of topics, and what was being said. I knew that my son was/is intelligent, and that if I had the proper tools, I could make a difference! The syllabus was the one area that I deemed would make a difference.
When Josh came home last August (new school year 2006-2007) with an assignment with no directions, and he was at a loss, I was at a loss; I started to cry, for we again did not have that promised syllabus, which I know would make the difference. How can I begin to help my son, if I had no direction? Or knowledge of what he was supposed to do? For me, the syllabus would not only tell me what class he is taking at a given time, but the handouts, books, or title of books (I bought his text books before), chapters to be gone over before meeting in class, chapters that we could read together so that I could help my son who has a problem with Reading Comprehension understand the concepts and ideas of the story etc. I wanted to know when he would be having quizzes/tests (naturally not surprised ones) so that I could help him study. I am a nurse and work varying hours, I rely on baby-sitters, and I could not expect a sitter to be invested in my son, like me, his mommy! I needed to know test dates in advance. I also did not want him to continue to cram for tests. A POLICY OF THE HOOKSETT MEMORIAL SCHOOL UNDER THE AUSPICES OF CAROL SOUCY, THE PRINCIPAL. I will submit emails stipulating where this practice occurred. These are the reasons why I needed a syllabus then. These are the reasons known to Jacqueline Perra (case manager, and speech therapist) why the syllabus IN FULL IMPLEMENTATION WAS NECESSARY.
I would find out from my former attorney Raymond Foss, that Carol Soucy, principal told him that, “she (meaning me), was the only parent asking for a syllabus.” Mr. Foss asked her, “was she wrong for asking for such”? Silence was, and is the continuing answer. One of the reasons that I was told by Jacqueline Perra (case manager), why there may be a problem getting a syllabus (despite her agreement in theory to this document, therefore placing it in his IEP at my request), is that it takes too much time to put this information together on a weekly basis: She told me that teachers are swamped with lots of paper-work, lessons plans etc. I asked her if a teacher’s aide could not do it, she just did not answer. I felt guilty, and at one point, I stupidly asked for the dissolution of syllabus. Soon after this I was remorseful because I knew deep inside, that this is the one thing that could and would make a difference. How would I be able to help him? He misses many things, and this was not his fault….he has attention deficit issues. I changed my mind; I telephone Ms. Perra and asked that the syllabus be sent home again. The school was angry. See my letter of 1/24/06 to Ms. Perra.
According to 300.342: “An IEP is in effect before Special Education and related services are provided to an eligible child under this part; and is implemented as soon as possible following the meetings described under 300.343.” #(3) “Each teacher and provider described in paragraph (b) (2) of this section is informed of (I) His or her specific responsibilities related to implementing the child’s IEP, and (ii) The specific accommodations, modifications and supports that must be provided for the child in accordance with the IEP.” I will submit documentation to show that the school only recently informed all of Joshua’s teachers, (Friday February 9th, 2007(please see email exhibit). (Procedural Violation)
I was told by Jacqueline Perra last year, that Josh was going to be De-identified this year, THIS WAS BEFORE ANY EVALUATIONS ETC. How could this be? I will submit documentation of this as well. The sad realization, FACT that I must deal with, is that the principal Ms. Soucy had NO INTENTION EVER OF IMPLEMENTING MY SON’S IEP.
NO INTENTION EVER, OF IMPLEMENTING MY SON’S IEP. IT WAS A CAT & MOUSE GAME OF CRUELTY AND FRUSTRATION. IT WAS ONLY WHEN MY FORMER ATTORNEY RAYMOND FOSS TOLD ME THAT MS. SOUCY SAID TO HIM, THAT “SHE (meaning me) WAS THE ONLY PARENT ASKING FOR A SYLLABUS Mr. Foss asked her, “WAS SHE (ME) WRONG IN ASKING FOR SUCH”? SILENCE WAS THE ANSWER HE GOT, AND IT IS THE ANSWER NOW!
It was then that I realized….that this entire night-mare danced before me. And I realized.
The lack of implementation of my son’s IEP follows 3.5 long years of (1) The lack of a FAPE, (as documented here); (2) Out-right federal and state violations, (as documented here); and (3) Fabrications from the District, (as documented here).
Initially, I referred my dear son to the “special education” department in October of 2003; it would be another 3 months before he was Identified, (Procedural Violation) then it would take another 3 months (March 2004) for the speech service to actually begin, leaving 2.5 months for actual speech therapy. (Please see Dec 1 Document with the seal of NH, pg.6). Tell me, IS THIS BECAUSE WE ARE NEGROES? OR ARE THEY THIS INEPT WITH ALL STUDENTS?
The school may want to quote the “INVESTIGATION” PERFORMED BY JOANNE ESAU, (state investigator), BUT I SAY THAT IT’S A CONSPIRACY OF THE FIRST ORDER, AND, MS.ESAU HAS HER REASONS AS TO WHY SHE IGNORED THE TRUTH; (SOMETHING YOU WILL DISCOVER THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE CONTENT OF MY EMAILS…APPARENTLY, AS A NEGRO I CAN ONLY BE A LIBERAL). I am giving her the benefit of the doubt, saying that she could see with her eyes that the child’s IEP was not being implemented)….anyhow, Ms. Soucy would make it clear: AS SHE TOLD MY ATTORNEY THAT I WAS THE ONLY PARENT ASKING FOR SUCH!

Count 11: VIOLATION OF 300.501, NH SEC Ed 1109.04, 34 C.F.R 300.345
PARENT PARTICIPATION: (PROCEDURAL VIOLATION) AND
OTHER ISSUES

Supporting Facts: Repeatedly the Supreme Court has held that parents must have the ability to participate in the educational decision-making process. A majority of Federal circuit courts have held that “substantive harm occurs when the procedural violations in question SERIOUSLY INFRINGE UPON THE PARENT’S OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IEP PROCESS.”
The court held that a school may not proceed with an IEP meeting absent the parent unless the school had been unable to convince the parents that they should attend, and the school could produce a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as telephone calls…correspondence…and…visits made to the parent’s home, or place of employment. My former attorney Raymond Foss was only an email away, a telephone call away, a fax away. The school had a signed release from me, giving him authority as my lawyer for any information, to any information relating to Joshua P.E. Higgins.
As explained in complaint #2, the school had violated my privacy when they gave my UNLISTED TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND THERE WAS NO EMERGENCY….THEY GAVE IT TO A BUS DRIVER! Subsequently, I changed my telephone number. Raymond Foss, then, my attorney, was the LEGITIMATE PERSON THEY SHOULD HAVE CONTACTED. BUT MS. SOUCY WAS REVENGFUL, AND FULL OF ANGER THAT I WAS UPSET BECAUSE SHE VIOLATED MY PRIVACY, THE SCHOOL CAME TOGETHER, AND DE-IDENTIFIED MY SON, WITHOUT MY INPUT, OR, MY ATTORNEY’S INPUT!
The school mailed on November 17, 2006 via certified mail a letter to parent of the meeting on November 29, 2006. The letter was not claimed and was returned to the school on 12/2/06 by the USPS. Where the meeting was to be on November 29, that notice, even if it were received on November 18, 2006, would not have met the terms of Ed 1125.03(a), (Procedural Violation) which requires written prior notice to be at least 14 days before the meeting. Without written Prior Notice received by the parent or sent to the Parent’s Counsel, THE SCHOOL HELD AN IEP MEETING TO REVIEW THE RESULTS OF A 3 YEAR REEVALUATION. At that IEP meeting, where there was no input by Parent’s counsel, the school team decided Joshua should no longer be identified; see Ed 1125.04, requiring written consent. (Procedural Violation). So I did not receive any written notice (which in itself violated the amount of time I should have been notified), having not met the statue, or state regulation.
The school, when it tracked the letter on 11/28/06, one day before the meeting, they did not attempt to contact Attorney Foss when they did not reach me, to either have him attend the meeting, or to determine if there was another means of contacting me.
One letter that was not received and one call that was not received because parent’s number was changed (because of school violating parent’s privacy by giving out telephone number to a bus driver, and THERE WAS NO EMERGENCY!) And no other attempt to contact the parent or the attorney seems inadequate attempts to give effective notice.
-Was the notice sent home with the student?
-Was a letter sent to the attorney?
-Were any emails sent to the parent?
-Were there any calls to the attorney from November 20 to November 30, the day
But would I be too presumptuous if I say that the meeting was phony? I was already told via Ms. Perra, that Josh would be De-Identified, the previous year (see my email to Ms Soucy dated Sept 6th, 2006, pg. 9). Why this meeting? Why the school’s evaluation...To a fore-gone conclusion? The school’s mind was made-up! No speech therapy and no syllabus for this little Negro.
“The District made an offer at the resolution Session that it would settle the agreement…settle the complaint. It would do the testing and hold off on discharging the child. That offer was rejected. Therefore there is no offer on the table to do testing because the District’s position is that the testing sufficient for IDEA purposes. So I just wanted a clarification on that”. (Kincaid, pg 12 Pre-hearing Conference 2/2/2007).
“So if we (my emphasis) put that offer back on the table and they accept it, then we have a basis to talk about that or not”? (HEARING OFFICER, PETER FOLEY: Pre-hearing Conference 2/2/2007).
First of all, the district did not make ANY OFFERS. THIS IS A RIGHT PER 34 C.F.R. 300-504(b). Independent educational Evaluation (PARENTS PROCEDURAL SAFE-GUARD). WONDER WHY THE CONGRESS CALLED IT SAFEGUARD?
SECONDLY, I DID NOT REJECT MY RIGHT. MS. KINCAID WANTED TO VIOLATE MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, AND RIGHT TO SEEK REDRESS TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR WRONGS DONE! (As explained in complaint #2) I MADE A COMPLAINT TO OCR, WHICH SHE WANTED TO HOLD HOSTAGE. THIS OFFICER OF THE COURT, SENT MY FORMER ATORNEY RAYMOND FOSS AN EMAIL STIPULATING THAT IF I DID NOT WITHDRAW MY OCR COMPLAINT, THEN THE DISTRICT WILL RETRACT THE OUTSIDE EVALUATION TESTING NEEDED FOR JOSH.
This Untruth by Ms. Kincaid asserts, and I quote: “At no time has the District or its agents, including its attorneys, retaliated against the parent for exercising her rights. The Department lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the allegations contained in the Complaint pertaining to retaliation.”
Is Ms. Kincaid insane? Does she believe her own lies? Has she told one too many lies???? Here is the Subject Matter jurisdiction, Ms. Kincaid: Email from Attorney Kincaid-She needs to speak with me: “Call from Jeanne Kincaid 2/9/07-11:36-
-Do you know that my client has filed an OCR complaint- I was cc’d on it -I asked for her to-Can you forward it to me?
-Dated February 8

SHE NEED US TO WITHDRAW THE OCR COMPLAINT WHILE WE ARE IN -
SHE SENT IT IN WITH HER SON TODAY TO THE SCHOOL.” (Former attorney Raymond Foss in an email to me).
“Ms. Campbell-
I got a call from attorney Kincaid, regarding your email of last night, which you sent to the school in Joshua’s backpack today. Attorney Kincaid states that she will not send the note to the Hearing officer, the testing will not take place, and the due process hearing will go forward on 2/20 unless you:
1. Withdraw the OCR complaint at this time and
2. That you do not send any more emails like the one sent this morning to the school. That from now on, until our matter is resolved, that you send all such issues to me to resolve with Ms. Kincaid.”
The truth is, I longed for this Due Process. I longed for JUSTICE FOR MY SON. INTERESTING TWIST OF WORDS/IDEAS, FROM A WOMAN WHO DID EVERY THING SHE COULD, TO STOP THE DUE PROCESS! A PERVERSED THREAT INDEED!

JOSH DID NOT HAVE THAT OUTSIDE TESTING, MANDATED BY IDEA

MR. FOLEY DID NOTHING. BUT I NEVER EXPECTED HIM TO. SUCH IS THE CORRUPCIONE. HE MADE HIS WONDERFUL AND HONEST ORDER.
SO THE DISTRICT VIOLATED IDEA….JUST (ANOTHER PROCEDURAL VIOLATION).
WE NEEDED THE TESTING, BECAUSE THEIR EVALUATION WAS INADEQUATE. IT WAS INFERIOR, AND WE WERE ENTITLED TO HONEST PROCLAMATIONS. AND WE HAVE THE PHONINESS OF THE HEARING OFFICER…..”SO IF WE PUT IT BACK ON THE TABLE…..”
There are so many instances of corruption, of conspiratorial knowing…I have to limit this!
The former speech therapist, via my request, had been sending home information from Joshua’s speech therapy session. This was very valuable information, for not only did I see what Josh was working on (my right an s a parent), but I could again reinforce concepts/ideas. For example, if he was working on the pronunciation of the “th” sound, I could continue this at home: Once the new therapist came, (Ms. Butler), Ms Kincaid, told the school that IDEA did not mandate this, and they should cease sending this information home. Information that made a difference. Information desperately needed! How could I help my son? How could I reinforce what was being taught in speech therapy? (See my email to former attorney Foss, of 12/1/2006).
“One area we did not discuss in detail yesterday afternoon was one issue with regard to the speech sessions. In the past, Ms. Perra provided my client with information on what was covered in the speech sessions (in detail), so that my client could reinforce Joshua’s learning at home, so that the 1 hour a week really made a difference in his disability. Ms. Butler is not doing that. My client would like this information to be conveyed to her as to what topics are being covered, what specifically is being covered, as was done by Ms. Perra. See attached sample for 9/19/06. As you will note, there is a section on the Speech Therapy form itself for Comments/Home Practice. If possible, I believe she would like this information for the sessions which Ms. Butler has already done. Thank you.” (Former attorney Raymond Foss, Jan 9, 2007).
“Ray- I will pass this information along to my client, but there is nothing in the IDEA that requires anything but trimester reports and I will be encouraging my client to be very careful in exceeding the requirements of the law.” (JKincaid, Jan 9, 2007).
“Thank you for your willingness to convey this to your client. I understand too how you would counsel your client in responding to this matter; but I would direct you to the language of the IEP itself, and the precedence created by your client.
Under the section, other, in the IEP it states in the 3rd paragraph that:
“Classroom teacher(s) and specialists (e.g. health) will provide parent with information and concepts, topics for discussion/instruction, key vocabulary and/or copies of reading selections in the areas of science, social studies and health in advance or concurrent with instruction.”(Raymond Foss, Jan 9, 2007)
The sheet Ms. Perra provided my client on 9/19/06, which I copied you in my email, seems consistent with that provision of the IEP. As the speech services are the only specialized service Joshua is receiving. I believe a fair reading of that section would include Ms. Perra and Ms. Butler as Specialists. I hope the district will see providing these as needed per the signed and amended IEP, rather than the IDEA per se. Thank you again.” (Raymond Foss, Jan 9, 2007).
Despite what Ms. Kincaid stated about IDEA and exceeding (what she terms the requirements of the law), she has violated the spirit of Congressional intent, let’s see what the Sixth Circuit Court states: “More than trivial” standard advocated in Hall and Polk. In Doe V. Smith, 879 F.2d 1340 (6th Cir. 1989)< the Sixth Circuit Court stated that in order to be ‘appropriate,’ the educational benefits provided by the states must be more than [trivial].” “The standard is satisfied by providing personalized instruction (my emphasis) with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction.” 879 F.2d at 1341, citing Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203.
Receiving a report on the types of things that went on in speech therapy, and the ability to go over such material……you know, reinforces things, and makes the education meaningful, indeed helpful,….Other-wise, why do it? Some people may say that there is an evil intent here on the part of Ms. Jeanne Kincaid.
(Mr. Littlefield, Superintendent of the Hooksett school District, sent me a reprimanding letter, and threats of libel from Kincaid, and Soucy…..THIS IS THE SUPERINTENDANT OF THE DISTRICT. IS THERE NO WONDER THAT LITTLE EDUCATION GOES ON IN THE DISTRICT? BUT HIS LETTER WAS AN ATTEMPT TO SILENCE ME, TO DENY MY RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I WILL NEVER CEASE THE EXPOSURE OF CORRUPTION, SIR)!
With weeks left before school recess for summer vacation (April 2007, with March’s speech therapy sessions coming in April,… a kind of double-up!), Ms. Kincaid would give the green light, for Ms. Butler to send home information from the speech therapy sessions. But even this information was inadequate, it paled in comparison to what I received from Ms. Perra, for example, Ms. Butler never send home any material for reinforcement. This was done on purpose! A LITTLE, TOO LATE, MS. KINCAID. For me, these acts of Ms. Kincaid borders on evil, clearly, she despises my child, and does not want him to learn. Is it because he is a NEGRO? Ms. Kincaid? I honestly see no other way of examining this.
BY THE WAY, JUST TO ELUCIDATE THE ANTI -EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT, AND THE CONTEMPT WITH WHICH WE FOUND OURSELVES ENVELOPED, MY FORMER ATTORNEY RAYMOND FOSS ASKED FOR MY SON’S RECORDS ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2006, HE DID NOT RECEIVED THEM UNTIL DECEMBER 1ST OF 2006. AFTER THE HOOKSETT MEMORIAL SCHOOL HAD ILLEGALLY COME TOGETHER, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF CAROL SOUCY PRINCIPAL AND, WITHOUT ME, OR COUNSEL PRESENT, VIOLATED IDEA. (Procedural Violation).
The school claimed that they were uncertain, on December 1, 2006 that Mr. Foss was still my counsel, and that is why they did not make copies of the files. That claim is insufficient for at least 3 reasons. (a) The school had a signed letter from an attorney formally asking for copies of the educational records and they made no effort to produce them until December 1, 2006, a month after the date the letter was mailed. (b) The school did not put in writing a request to confirm counsel was still acting as counsel for Elizabeth Campbell. (c) The school had in its possession an authorization from Elizabeth Campbell attached to the letter of November 1, 2006, stating that her authorization was to last a year. If there was any kind of limited engagement, directed only at getting the syllabi, such an authorization would not have been for a full year. (d) Principal Soucy received a call from Counsel on November 20, 2006, negotiating a plan for the registration of Joshua Higgins in the PTA ski program. (See exhibit). Principal Soucy faxed a letter to Counsel with the specifics of that plan. Nowhere in that letter did she reference the meeting of November 29th, 2006.


Count 111: VIOLATION OF 34 C.F.R 300.502: LACK OF OUTSIDE EVALUATION
PROCEDURAL VIOLATION AND OTHER ISSUES

Supporting Facts: The District agreed to outside testing for my son, which is A RIGHT under IDEA. The testing performed by the school was inadequate as my former attorney so poignantly put it. The school agreed to the outside testing, in affect agreeing that their testing was inadequate and of low quality. (See exhibit). One of the things my former attorney Raymond Foss discovered is that the IEP HAD NO MEASURABLE GOALS. The District then ran out, and started to insert certain data, but the damage being done all these years. (Incidentally, I wonder if all parents who find themselves with disable children should automatically hire an attorney just to make sure that their child’s IEP is adequate) anyhow, I quote my former attorney directly: “It is measurable , but the measurability is reference to the testing that the District did, which we argued was inadequate testing because of the number of tests that were not conducted in terms of the evaluations that should have been performed (my emphasis)on Joshua to get a true measure of what his capabilities were versus his achievement along with the behavioral concerns that there are, in part, because of his ADHD. (20 U.S.C 1400(2) (c) undiagnosed disabilities prevented children from having a successful educational experience). So there was…So to know whether or not the objectives are sufficiently measurable and the other concern that was raised in my amended request for Due Process that I do not believe is adequately reflected in the revised IEP was that because of the lack of additional testing and because of the way the rest of the IEP is written, there is inadequate statements as to Joshua’s baselines against which the improvement of the now more objective measures could be addressed…could be measured against. (My emphasis). Because the school only…The School District only revised the objectives portion of the IEP. They did not adjust his profile or any other aspect of the IEP so as to have created a…a…a more comprehensive baseline of understanding as to what his abilities were against which those measurable objectives were being addressed. Does that make sense?”
“THE IEP IS NOT…HAS NOT BEEN COMPREHENSIVELY REVISED TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE OBJECTIVE MEASURES.” “THERE IS MEASURABILITY THAT HAS BEEN ADDED. BUT THE BASELINE IS NOT THERE SO THE…SO THE STARTING POINT OF THE YARDSTICK HAS NOT BEEN PLACED IN THE GROUND.” (ATTORNEY FOSS, from Pre-hearing Conference pg. 10) …FOSS TO…….MS. KINCAID: THE IEP MEASURABLITIY IS SELF-REFERENCING.
I will submit this document, as it took a looooooong time, for people who did not want to hear it, people who do not respect the law, (namely Ms. Kincaid) to comprehend that we were requesting additional testing! OUTSIDE EVALUATION!
The District via attorney Kincaid, agreed to the testing. A RIGHT ACCORDING TO 300.502. Attorney Kincaid learned that I had made a complaint to the OCR in Boston, (exercising my first Amendment Right, for peaceful redress, of a wrong), Ms. Kincaid sent an email to my former attorney Raymond Foss, which was forwarded to me, and in it, she stated that if I did not retract my OCR complaint, the District would retract the outside evaluation “offer.” I thought it was A RIGHT, ACCORDING TO 300.502. Well, being aware of my constitutional right (on this respect) I declined. Ms. Kincaid knows full well that this is an IDEA RIGHT; this is why I said earlier, that she has no respect for the law….and she is an officer of the court.
“#4 “I was successful in that effort, however, the school district refused to the agreement on February 9, 2007 because my client refused to withdraw an OCR Complaint filed on January 30th, 2007, and amended on February 8, 2007, when I posed the school district’s request to her late on February 9, 2007.” (Former attorney Raymond Foss, from his MOTION FOR INSTRUCTION to the good Peter Foley Hearing Officer)
NOW COMES MS. KINCAID:
(#3) “At no time has the District or its agents, including its attorneys, retaliated against the parent for exercising her rights. The Department lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the allegations contained in the Complaint pertaining to retaliation.” (Part of a letter sent to Elizabeth Campbell, (me) July 5th 2007).
It is difficult to keep up with this. Ms. Kincaid wanted to drive me crazy with her untruths. THIS, CONSTITUTES ABUSE!
When my son was not able to get that outside Evaluation mandated by the Congress/IDEA: WHEN THE GOOD FOLEY RULED AGAINST MY NEGRO SON, AND TOOK AWAY THE SPEECH THERAPY, TELL ME, DEAR GOD TELL ME, WHAT IS IT? BECAUSE I REFUSED TO RETRACT MY COMPLAINT, DENY MY SPEECH, MY FIRST AMENDEMENT RIGHT! MY RIGHT TO PEACEFULLY ADDRESS THE GOVERNMENT FOR A WRONG….. STIFLE MYSELF? ACT LIKE I DO NOT BELONG TO THIS PLANET? TELL ME MS. KINCAID, WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!
IS IT RETALIATION?????
BUT THIS IS THE VERY COMMON BEHAVIOUR AND ATTIDUE OF THE LIBERAL IN AMERICA. THEY ARE ALL ABOUT INJUSTICE AND CORRUPTION, AND THEY ACT LIKE ANGELS IN DISGUISE, WHILE ABUSING BLACK, AND POOR WHITE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY ON A DAILY BASIS. THE BEST KEPT FACT. THEY ENGAGE IN HOURLY PROJECTION OF THEIR HATRED, AND CONTEMPT FOR NEGROES, WHILE PRETENDING IT IS THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY. JUST WATCH MS. CLINTON, AND HER SOUTHERN DRAWL WHEN IN THE COMPANY OF BLACKS!
Mr. Littlefield (Hooksett District Super) says that I will be sued because I have sought to destroy a career; A CAREER OF WHAT? MR. LITTLEFIELD? A LITTLE BOY WHO WANTS TO HEAR…..THE TRAIN A-WHISTILING? THE CAR HORN A-BLOWING, MR. LITTLEFIELD? DO YOU THINK THAT LITTLE BOY A FEW YEARS AGO DESERVE TO ‘LIVE’ MR. LITTLEFIELD? WHO NEEDS COCHLEAR IMPLANTS MR. LITTLE FIELD? OR PEOPLE ABUSING THE PUBLIC, WHILE THEIR FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES PAY THEM EXTRAVAGANTLY FROM SAID PUBLIC COIFFURES,
MR. LITTLEFIELD? WHAT ABOUT MY SON’S LIFE, MR. LITTLE FIELD? OH! I FORGOT, HE IS A NEGRO, HE DOES NOT COUNT!
Subsequently, my son did not have that outside evaluation…..see, one thing, certain people cannot stand is an intelligent Negro, for in order for certain people to feel good about themselves, then a Negro MUST be DEVALUED! Because my son did not have the benefit of outside, independent evaluations, and, per the condoning nature of Peter Foley… Josh did not have that evaluation independent and outside, and so Mr. Peter Foley could issue his Solomon-like edict! Hence, JUST ANOTHER PROCEDURAL VIOLATION!
By the way, I asked the school, via an email to Ms. Browning, who forward the email to Ms. Heath (since she was practically on her way to a vacation); I asked that Joshua’s records of Health and Education be forwarded to me in sealed envelopes, what I got, and what was sent to the child’s new school were past emails of mine, and the two disciplinary incidents Josh was involved in, IN A VERY DIFFICULT YEAR, THE YEAR IN WHICH HE WAS ABUSED BY THE PRINCIPAL MS. CAROL SOUCY, AND THE SUBSEQUENT COVERUP BY THE NH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. AN ATTEMPT TO BIAS THE NEW SCHOOL AGAINST MYSELF, AND JOSH!


Count 1V: VIOLATION OF 34 C.F.R 300.30: DENIAL OF ADVOCACY.
PROCEDURAL SAFE GUARD AND OTHER THINGS.

Supporting Facts: When Ms. Soucy and the Hooksett police told me that I could no longer email, fax, call, or visit my son’s school, they left him without an advocate. 300.30 show us with what degree the Federal government takes this responsibility: “Each public agency must ensure that the rights of a child are protected by determining the need for, and assigning (my emphasis), a surrogate parent whenever…..”(See regulation). I was available, but because the school took me away, they had the power, and the right to find a surrogate advocate. THEY DID NOT!


Count V: VIOLATION OF PROTECTION CLAUSE OF 14TH AMENDMENT

Supporting Facts: There are many questions of law and fact in reference to this violation. Did Ms. Carol Soucy violate my son’s right to personal safety and non punitive conditions in the least restrictive setting? And under the least restrictive conditions as mandated by the 14th Amendment to the United States constitution and the child protection Law of 1975.
When my son got off the school bus, I knew that something was wrong. His eyes were red, and he had tear stains about his face. I hugged him; and as I started to ask what was wrong, he was already crying. Fresh tears trickling down his cheeks. He could barely speak, and all I could do was to hug him. In time he would calm down enough to tell me what was wrong.
Please see my email to former attorney Raymond Foss (dated Feb 15, 2007): It would appear that Josh had a 6 hour suspension out of his class. WHY is still in the dark, even at this hour. Josh believed at the time that the 6 hour suspension was because he missed Wednesday (the day before) from school due to a state-wide snow storm: In fact, I believed this as well. Josh had been disciplined unfairly in the past, and this line of thinking did not seem to be unusual then. Most of the schools in the state were closed as reasonable Superintendents/principals, erred on the side of caution, and made-up snow days, when the temperature would start to soar.
Josh told me that he had to stay in a room that was hot, per order of Ms. Soucy. The door to the room was closed, but not locked. My son said that he soon became thirsty, and he had to go to the bathroom, he said that he wet himself…and indeed his under-ware, and pants and jacket were soaked with urine upon arriving home! Ms. Soucy would not allow him to leave the room, not even to go to the bathroom! He told her that the room was very hot, and then the room got hotter. He told me that he was very scared, and did not know what was going to happen to him. He said he was crying but nobody came. Josh told me that he could hear voices outside the door, of people laughing, people like Ms. War hall (she had taken up residence at the school…in fact, she frequented Joshua’s class. This was consistent with what a class-mate of his told me at the playground. I found this to be very interesting indeed! I wondered how many parents knew? How many cared? (Please see my emails of January 24, & 26, 2007, to former attorney Foss).
This room where my son was abused is a room adjacent to Ms. Soucy’s. It is not Mr. Harrises’s office, Josh made this clear!
Remember, up to this day, I have never been told why this has occurred. I have been informed (via mail) of another incident involving Josh. In this incident you will note that Ms. Soucy mentions how Josh was given snacks, and drinks etc. I followed up with Josh regarding this, for by now, some three months later, Ms. Soucy was aware that I had reported those events above to DCYF: Josh told me that she has never given him any snacks, or anything to drink. I asked him that question, in so many ways, at so many different times; I thought I was going mad! He kept repeating the same thing, and got upset with me for not believing him. Truth is, I believed my son then, and I believe him now. The truth can be so startling at times.
I would now like to bring your attention to a letter sent to me by Ms. Soucy (dated April 6th, 2007……letter I reference above) (remember, the initial abuse occurred in February 2007): “Dear Elizabeth: Joshua brought your note to me this morning. The description of yesterday’s events that Josh gave to you is consistent with what he shared with us, and consistent with the description from the other child involved. Your impressions of the situation were also accurate. (No compliment to me)…In fact, Mr. Harrises and I explained the same points to Joshua that you did. Our goal was to have him return to his class yesterday afternoon.”
Some one here is displaying acts of incredible corruption!! (Please see letter of April 7th to Mr. Peter Foley here regarding this affair, I want to stay with this abuse).
Because the school sent me nothing in reference to what Josh was saying, and because I believed what my son told me. Because I believe(d) that his personal safety was at risk, and I could see that he was emotionally traumatized, I made a complaint to DCYF: March, April, May, June…..4 months went by, and I heard nothing. I did not forget however. Then I made a complaint to the Educational Department in an attempt to get a hearing regarding what Ms. Soucy had done to me, and my son:; the abuse, the denial of advocacy for him, and Due Process for me, and perhaps 1,or 2 other things. BANG! AND THERE IT WAS! (JKincaid, attorney for the school District 7/5/07): “The District has never locked up the student nor denied him water while turning up the heat. The commissioner of Education rejected this assertion following a review by a complaint investigator.” Now, I always follow up. That’s why I asked Josh again and again not the same day, but a week later, two days later….very casually. Naturally, I wanted to know who this investigator was, and why he/she did not interview my son, and get back to me. Hurrying along, I emailed Sarah Browning, (Special Assistant to the commissioner) several emails with questions….looking for answers during the first week of July( I’ll include them for the record). I got no response.
Then I made an appointment to see Mr. Berwick (Department Coordinator), I wanted to see the files…the record pertaining to Josh and myself. While there, Ms. Browning came by and introduced herself, she wanted to see me before I left. Then I discovered that the Department of Education was not aware of my Complaint. The Commissioner had never assigned an investigator….THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATOR FROM THE DEPARTMENT! OK! Remember Ms. Kincaid’s words: “The district has never locked up the student nor denied him water while turning up the heat. The Commissioner of Education rejected this assertion following a review by a complaint investigator. The Department lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this complaint allegation. (email and letter to me July 5, 2007): Is this another UNTRUTH?
Mr. Little field, Superintendent for the Hooksett District School, sent me a certified letter, really a threat letter, to deny my First Amendment Rights….something to the effect that Ms. Soucy and Ms Kincaid were fine characters, and I could/would be sued for slander. I continue to say. I stand by everything I’ve said.
I next asked Ms. Browning to call DCYF she spoke to a woman who confirmed that I did indeed made the complaint on Feb 16th, 2007, she also said that the complaint was forwarded to Dr. Judith Fillion. Ms. Fillion is the Director of the Division of program support. I believe this woman is responsible for licensing and certification of teachers, (and maybe more). I asked Ms. Browning to convey to Dr. Fillion that I would like a copy of the results of the complaint I made. (Remember, I am sitting across from Ms. Browning, today’s date is Monday July 16th, 2007). The good Fillion responded by saying that I would have to get a subpoena, because she is not going to “release the record.” OK so that’s what I have to do. But there is more……………………
I received a letter from the deputy commissioner (Mary S. Heath dated August 3, 2007): “The commissioner has forwarded to me your July 31st email, which was addressed to Ms. Browning, and asked that I review and respond to your request…..”
There is more, so I’ll skip to this: “Please be advised that your complaint was assigned to an investigator and is currently an ongoing investigation. As such, the results of the investigation are not available until after the investigation has been completed. It is also my understanding that the investigator will be contacting you soon regarding the issues detailed in your complaint.”
But I have lots of questions (please see emails to S Browning of July 9, 2007, & July 10th 2007). (1) Where did Ms. Kincaid receive her information? Did she just make it up? Is this call lying? (2) That Ms. Fillion told Sarah Browning (Special Assistant to the Commissioner) that I would have to get a subpoena for the results of the investigation is true, for was I not present, when Ms. Browning repeated that phrase? “So she needs to get a subpoena for those records.” But what were the records? What was contained therein? Is this an issue of cover-up? Big, Big lies?
And so I received this letter from Mary Heath (Deputy Commissioner, dated August 3, 2007). Certainly they were not worried about me getting a subpoena for an empty envelope. Ms. Heath claims that an investigator will be contacting me real soon. Today is now August 24th. They are waiting to see if I will file this law-suit before “justice” commences. I see!
In March of this year (2007); Josh started having night-mares about the police, and Ms. Soucy. He started having bed-wetting accidents. When the summer came, these problems went away. Now that commercials of school are back on television, and he is aware of his return to school, the issues mentioned above, has returned. I cannot in good faith allow my child to be the victim again of child-abuse, cover-ups, and racism. Josh has begged me, mommy please don’t send me back there. (See my letter to former attorney Raymond Foss dated Jan 26th, 2007). I am a poor Black woman. I will not send him back there. I am requesting that the District pays for Joshua’s tuition at another school.


Count V1: VIOLATION OF TITLE 20>CHPT 31>SUBCHPT 111, PART 4>1232G
20 U.S.C 1417 (c) UNDER 14TH AMENDMENT (469) DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE: FEDERAL INTERESTS


Supporting Facts: When Officer Linda War hall came to this mother’s home in April of 2007, I asked her if she had a warrant. She replied no. I then refused to open my door. (See complaint #2). Ms. War hall with another male companion officer banged on my door un-relentlessly for 22 minutes. At the time, I was on the telephone with a friend, who stayed on with me. I will not go over this complaint here, as I already did so in complaint #2; but for clarification purposes, I will say that because I would not open my door to Ms. War hall and her companion officer, threatened me: The male officer said that he was going to get a CHINS for my son, and that he would also be informing DCYF. Ms. War hall said that she had all the information she needed, after this episode; I heard nothing more of this. As I said in complaint # 2, I believed the visit was an attempt to arrest me. Get something negative against me, since I would not meet with Ms. War hall, and Ms Soucy (at the request of Ms. Chabot, and Ms. Soucy); the visit was also meant to further harass, and intimidate.
Nothing became of this. As far as I was concern at the time, she came to arrest me, and it did not occur. Of-course I still worried about my driving in town, as I believe that every Hooksett police officer knew/knows my license plate #, make and model of car. I believed too that they were on the “look-out” for me. Indeed, I was/am very conscious of them.
Then I received a letter from Ms. Polak in July, the cover sheet was CC (carbon-copied to Ms War hall). I wondered why! Next, I read the content of the letter, and in this letter, Ms. Polak had written to me about the school’s proposal of a 504 plan, for Josh, and a meeting of that plan that I should attend (now that they had brought about his De-Identification. The letter not only stated Joshua’s diagnosis as having ADHD, but went on to say that ADHD is a mental illness. I could not understand why Ms. War hall would have to know this, and then my brain clicked back to that phrase of hers….”I have all the information I need:” Ms. War hall said those words in relation to the male officer accompanying her, who said that they will be getting a CHINS, and they will inform DCYS. MY SON’S PRIVACY HAD BEEN BREACHED. DID MS. WAR HALL HAVE TO KNOW THIS? Ms. Kincaid’s response in an email to me (email in which she questioned my sufficiency for another complaint for a Hearing), that Ms. War hall was a “school official” and thus have a right to know. I know quote: “The district has not improperly exchanged (my emphasis) any personally identifiable information about the student to school bus drivers or the school resource officer, both entities qualifying as “school officials” entitled to access educational records under FERPA.” Phone numbers constitute “directory information” and may be released without parental permission.” (JKincaid, from School District Response To Hearing Complaint; July 5th 2007, pg.2).
I will call your attention to the phrase “improperly exchanged,” this is not a denial that information was exchanged, rather HOW that information was handled. Furthermore, Ms. Kincaid goes on to say: “Furthermore, the parent’s allegation that the District sent correspondence to the police department pertains to events occurring after May 11, 2007, when the student had been determined ineligible for special education services.” (JKincaid, School District Response to Hearing Complaint; July 5th 2007, pg3).
How does one begin to answer this? Ms. Kincaid was not counting on the Winkleman case with the Supreme Court decision that parents, and poor people like me, could go to the courts for justice….otherwise, how could she say this? You mean that because she succeeded in De-Identifying my son via omissions, misrepresentations, deceit, and lies, that his record prior can be released without consent? That IDEA now says, sorry, the record is available to the public? Now De-Classified?
“Events occurring after May 11th, 2007……” Common Sense tells me, that my son’s records prior were, and are private records protected by IDEA, and its procedural safeguards provided for in 34 C.F.R. 300.571 and 34 C.F.R.300.572. PERIOD. It does not say if a student becomes “ineligible” that those records are now public records. I certainly did not consent.
As for the presence of Ms. Chabot, and Ms. War hall at my son’s Due process Hearing: The Hearing was, and is about IDEA. Not Civil Rights. Not Amendments 1 and 14 as I shall cover in my Complaint; so these folks had no business being there!
Let’s revisit Ms. Polak’s letter of June 12th, 2007 to me): This letter was carbon copied to Ms. War hall. Ms Polak claims that Ms War hall only received that page, and that page alone, but a nagging phrase would not go away. I had stored away what that male officer said regarding the CHINS, I reasoned at the time, that that was the bait. I would surely open my door. I did not! The troubling piece about that was Ms. War hall’s statement that phrase; “I have all the information I need.” Had I not received Ms. Polak’s letter CC to Ms. War hall, I would not have realize this. It hit me like a brick. Do you know that one nurse or physician cannot go to another floor, and read the charts from another floor? You have to be directly involved in the care of that patient!
Patient’s privacy is so protected. And rightly so! IT IS AGAINST HIPAA OTHERWISE.
Josh will grow up in this town, a little Black boy, playing ball, going to church, college, driving: Going to the movies. Joshua’s identity and development would take place in this town….and there will be gossip. He will be stigmatized. ….I expected a certain amount of privacy built into the PROCEDURAL SAFE-GUARD.
Ms Polak denied that Ms. War hall had access to the entire letter, stating she only had access to the first page. Why? I asked her, THIS WAS WHAT SHE SAID: “She was a recipient of the letter because it offered a change in the communication protocol she had put into effect in October, 2006.” (Polak’s letter of June 22, 2007). Why am I not impressed by this? There were two resolution sessions I attended, and a pre-conference hearing, all attended by Ms Polak, two attended by Ms. Soucy. Why did she not send this note to Ms. War hall’s attention when she and I and Ms. Perra attended the last Resolution session? (I chose this one since Ms. Soucy was not present)….is this not the time you would also want to make sure everything is above board since there will be a change in the “communication protocol”? None of the players/figure-heads (Soucy, War hall) would be present (none were present with the 504 plan either) But she shrugged….. Could not answer this! Ms. Kincaid already did!
But let’s revisit the un-consented and un-welcomed visit of Ms. Chabot (Hooksett prosecutor), and Ms. War hall (Hooksett police-woman) at my son’s Due Process Hearing: (A rare occurrence, an unusual occurrence) according to Ms. Browning, special Assistant to the Commissioner (see email of S Browning July 18th, 2007, regarding this). Likewise 3 other Special Education lawyers I consulted.
The prosecutor and the police, (the latter dressed in uniform and with a loaded gun) sat in a room adjacent to my son’s hearing. (I could take the jury there)……they will see that there was no privacy. I was alone representing son. The jury will hear from me that the Hearing officer Peter Foley, and JKincaid convened with the Hooksett police department party, as well as the Memorial school party during the two breaks, and definitely upon termination! The jury/judge will hear and see for themselves that the walls are thin, and Ms. Chabot and Ms. War hall could as well be in the room. Mr. Foley and Jkincaid knew this. They were aware of the conditions. They knew too, that I could not leave that room unless I ran into these two…the prosecutor running the show, and the police in regalia with a loaded gun!
Dear God! I expected a certain amount of privacy based on IDEA and the procedural Safeguards provided in 34 C.F.R 300.571 parents and guardians….we rely on these safeguards!---LIBERTY INTEREST.
This is an invasion of an expectation of privacy, protected under the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. (1983).

FERPA IS AN INADEQUATE PIECE OF LEGISLATION FOR A CERTAIN SEGMENT OF AMERICAN SOCIETY. CURRENTLY THIS SEGMENT ENJOY SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL RIGHTS TO CHALLENGES THAT HAS THE SAME CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECT ON THEM THAT IF DONE TO THE POPULATION AT LARGE, WOULD NOT BE TOLERATED. HOW CAN THIS BE? IN AMERICA?
I BELIEVE THAT MY SON’S Right to Privacy secured by the Due (469) Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION has been violated. The Right to Privacy rests on my son’s Individual Interest, (autonomy Rights). When this personal information was disclosed to War hall regarding his behaviour….(CHINS talk); the letter from Polak to War hall detailing 504 plan, and the physical presence of the town’s prosecutor and a police-woman (Chabot & War hall) at his Hearing: I expected a certain amount of Privacy based on IDEA and its procedural safe-guards; provided for in 34 C.F.R 300.571, and 34 C.F.R. 300.572 The issue is not Defamation, but an invasion of Privacy which is protected under the Constitution. I rely on those safeguards, hence my son’s liberty Interest.
I am asserting an entitlement to relief under 1983 for Violation of IDEA, 20 U.S.C 1417(c) states: “ IDEA was enacted to protect the educational needs of disabled/handicapped children and to provide them with a FAPE. IDEA protects the right to privacy pursuant to 20 U.S.C 1417 (c) which states in part, the secretary shall take appropriate actions, in accordance with the provisions of sec 1232 (g) of this title, to assure the protection of the confidentiality of any personally identifiable data, information, and records collected or maintained by the secretary and by the state and local educational agencies pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter. These safeguards include non disclosure of names, 34 C.F.R. 300.572(a) a requirement for consent, 300.500(a)(c), and protection against disclosure of information in dispute resolution, 300.508(a)(b). These safeguards were violated when Ms. Chabot and Ms. War hall attended my son’s hearing. Ms. War hall and the Hooksett police Department received information regarding Josh and behaviours at the school, and now with respect to the male officer who accompanied Ms. War hall to my home on April 6th 2007, who yelled, “we will be directing a CHINS against you, and we will inform DCYF.” (See email to Mr. Foley of April 7th 2007): Clear evidence that the Hooksett police Department had educational records of Josh that they were (by law) not privy to. Josh had some recent behavioral issues that were the direct result of the school’s anger for and about me, being vented upon son, since he was accessible. In a letter entitled “SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE TO THE HEARING COMPLAINT,” dated July 5, 2007) JKincaid writes: “ The District has not improperly exchanged any personally identifiable information about the student to school bus drivers or the school resource officer, both entities qualifying as “school officials” entitled to access educational records under FERPA.” (My emphasis). BUT THIS IS ANOTHER BLATANT UNTRUTH FROM MS. Kincaid.

EDUCATIONAL RECORDS” VS POLICE RECORDS.

“On June 27, 2002, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a lower court’s ruling that university disciplinary records are “education records”(my emphasis) under FERPA and that disclosing such records without student’s consent constitutes a violation of FERPA. 1n 1998, the Department asked a federal district court in Ohio to enjoin Miami University and the Ohio State University from disclosing records containing the names of student victims and accused students as prohibited under FERPA. On March 20, 2000, the U.S. district court for the southern District of Ohio permanently enjoined the two Ohio universities from disclosing their on-campus disciplinary records to the public under the state’s open records law.
In affirming the ruling, the Circuit court concluded that continued release of student disciplinary records “will irreparably harm the United States” and the Department. This is important for three reasons: 1) the court agreed with the lower court that the student Right-to-know and Campus security Act provides parents and students with statistical information about the type and amount of crimes on campus; 2) the court reaffirmed the Department’s broad reading of the term “education records” and stated that Congress, in amending FERPA in 1998 to allow postsecondary institutions to disclose the final results of disciplinary proceedings, must have intended that disciplinary records be education records or this amendment would be “superfluous;” and 3) the court held that the Department was within its right in seeking an injunctive relief in this case because none of the administrative remedies authorized by FERPA would have stopped the violations. In effect, the court held that the Department can take preemptive actions in enforcing FERPA rather than only after violations occur.” (ED.gov U.S Dept of Ed; Recent changes affecting FERPA & PPRA).
Because Joshua’s name was on that document with the diagnosis and this was already disclosed, (note, he cannot give consent, he is only 10) THE ONLY AVAILABLE RELIEF WOULD HAVE TO BE PRIVATE RELIEF. JOSH IS OF THE CLASS FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED. IS THERE LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO PROVIDE OR DENY REMEDY? IS THE PRIVATE REMEDY CONSISTENT WITH THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE OF THE LAW? IS THE CAUSE OF ACTION TRADITIONALLY RELEGATED TO NH STATE LAW?
It is true that IDEA does not indicate that a congressional intent to preclude a private cause of action, but it is unthinkable that Congress would have intended that a plaintiff who was deprived of the procedural safeguards…..should be left without a remedy. INFACT, THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT, DID NOTHING BUT VIOLATE THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS. THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR LAW.
This is a statutory scheme such as the EHA where great emphasis is placed upon procedural safeguards, we must assume that Congress intended some kind of RELIEF when, through school district policy or misconduct of school officials or both, a handicapped child is deprived of procedural safeguards by 1415.
The remedy I am seeking for my son, would aid the primary congressional goal of protecting the educational needs of handicapped children (see id. At 145), while not intruding into an area traditionally committed to NH state law. See Cort, 422 U.S. at 68.
Moreover, tis the better solution to allow a1983 to supply the right of action to a plaintiff who has been denied Procedural safeguards under 1415 and who as a result thereof, has not received the findings and decisions following the “impartial” due process hearing.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WE SEE THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS AGAIN, AND AGAIN; COUNT AFTER COUNT. DID THIS HAPPEN TO MY SON AND SELF BECAUSE WE ARE BLACK? BECAUSE OF THE HISTORICAL DENIAL OF AN EDUCATION FOR NEGROES? IS THIS STILL VERY MUCH THE PREVAILING THOUGHT? HERE IN NH (despite Dr. King’s birthday)? OR, IS THIS HOW ALL PEOPLE ARE TREATED IN THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE?
TIME AFTER TIME, WE HAVE EXPERIENCED THE PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS. THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A REASON WHY THE CONGRESS ENACTED THESE SAFE GUARDS. MY SON WAS DENIED A FAPE:

(1) Failed to properly evaluate Joshua fully in that they did not complete the full range of testing that would have been able to identify all of the disabilities and their manifestations in Joshua’s learning.
(2) Failed to provide Joshua with an appropriate Individualized Education Program (IEP) in that the IEP goal and some of the objectives were not measurable;
(3) Failed to implement fully the IEP for a number of years, by failing to provide the parent with the syllabus that was to be provided to her to reinforce the education Joshua was receiving during the school week;
(4) Failed to implement fully the IEP by failing to provide the parent with the speech session summary sheets, when the responsibility for speech services changes from Jacqueline Perra to Janet Butler, so that the parent was not able to reinforce this one related service that Joshua was to receive per his IEP;
(5) The school District failed to ensure the notification of the parent of the reevaluations review hearing on November 29, 2006;
(6) The Denial of outside evaluation as prescribed by IDEA
(7) Denial of advocacy
(8) The school district failed to notify the parent’s counsel of the reevaluations review hearing on November 29, 2006
(9) Violation of Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment to the U.S.A Const
(10) Failure to obtain an Impartial Hearing
(11) Violation of title 20, chpt 31, & due process clause(469) 14th Amend-
Ment, Federal Interest



MY SON IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF. (Private as well as those mandated by Congress). THE LAWS ARE FOR ALL OF US. PLEASE SEND THE DISTRICT, THE LAWYERS AND THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT A POWERFUL MESSAGE
IN PURSUANT TO RSA 508; 4-C; IDEA/504 OF REHAB ACT;
14TH AMENDMENT PROTECTION CLAUSE, AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSE; CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1991.
(1) I am seeking attorney Fees for Mr. Foss.
(2) I am seeking reimbursement for private school tuition for my son
(3) I am seeking a private and IDEA remedy for all the procedural violations
(4) I am seeking a private remedy for the abuse, and the cover-up
(5) I am seeking a private remedy for the violation of my son’s privacy
(6) I am seeking the IDEA remedy for outside Evaluation

I pray that the court will have mercy on us, and relieve us of our suffering.