Lets recap what happened in the Family Courts and Law, with some notes in my legal research. Focused on mostly New Hampshire Family Court Legal Issues, with some Federal Law and action in the legislature. This is happen everywhere

This is not legal advice; if you can afford a lawyer, nice. I’m switching things up, and putting more of my thoughts and documentation, and we’ll save the candor for the courtroom. I hoped on my bike this fine, isolated Easter Sunday, and listened to some new rap. If one parent can act like a kid, so can I.

They already stole my children, and I haven’t seen them in over a year. Here’s how….

Family Court Testimony at Senate and House

Since the Special Committee on Family Family Courts failed to fully address the issues (though near insurmountable) in the Family Courts of New Hampshire, the legislature made another “Special” Committee for DCYF. Department of Children, Youth and Families.

New Hampshire RSA 173B is unconstitutional, via Article 15 [Rights of the Accused], and the Family Courts abuse pro se litigants with favor to lawyers, which is a violation of Due Process, via the US 14th Amendment and Article 14 of the NH Constitution.

It’s not just me saying it, thousands of families have been abused across the country. Luckily, things are changing, just not quick enough, and those responsible appear to be covering it up.

Judges, Lawyers, Police are lying, committing fraud, hiding evidence, and breaking the law. Mistakes happen, but not like this.

Special Committee Division of Children, Youth and Family

The House of Representatives Special Committee for DCYF. Youth Detention Camps (YDC) where they concentrate the parentless poor children.

Representative Leah Cushman has been removed from Chair of the Special Committee.

This committee was respectful, and it is acknowledged that they appear to want to fix the issues, and are not responsible for them. Rep. Cushman opened up the hearing with an excellent testimony.

See information on the Special Committee on the Division of Children, Youth and Families here.

Senate Judiciary Hearing on House Bills – Family, Courts

Articulating my ideas, after the Domestic Violence Coalition (NHCADSV) and associates testified nonsense.

All a woman has to do is say she is scared.

Courts Have Family Law Wrong

A family is an asset. A family name is intellectually property. Some usually decides to break up a family, and if they have no legitimate reason, it is their faults.

The children’s best interest is to have a nuclear family. Mommy and Daddy. If the mother hits the father, she is the abuser. If the dad has an affair, he caused the end of the relationship. They can still work through these things, or not.

If someone decided to just break up the family because they think their life with be better, or the ridiculous notion of “irreconcilable differences”, they are damaging and abandoning the family. It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to leave, just that they are at a disadvantage.

Unfortunately, what typically happens is the party that ends the relationship gets control of the children and house. They get child support. And if there is any doubt that they will get those considerations, they (meaning typically women), make up false allegations of abuse.

This is called the “Civil Bullet“, like what happened in my parenting case, or even more unfortunate, criminal charges with the “Silver Bullet Technique“.

Mandatory Supreme Court Appeal

Final decrees in the Family Courts are a mandatory appeal. I filled my briefs this month, requested 30 minutes oral argument before the Full Court. I filed my appeal and appendix, then filed a masterful amended appeal and appendix.

It was stricken without any explanation or legal grounds while I was testifying at the Senate Judiciary. So I went to my office and filed objection and motion to clarify a few hours later.

It appears that the Supreme and Lower courts are hiding the Family Court Legal Issues noted in my appeal. I sent the following to the New Hampshire Supreme Court:

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure


Cornell Law describes – Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Under current law, “a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a cognizable interest in the outcome.” 1 “[A]n actual controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation.” 2 ). See also, e.g., Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 568 U.S. 597, 609 (2013) ( “It is a basic principle of Article III that a justiciable case or controversy must remain extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” )

  1. I maintain a cognizable interest in the outcome, which is the point of the motion and attached documents. The motion I resubmitted attached the named exhibits, which this court should consider a report of Judicial and Professional Misconduct, and has duty to Sua Sponte take action. Appellee and her attorney are abusing the legal process through fraud and violation of law intentionally. The victims are children.
  2. They are doing this Inchoate, or “in cahoots” with the Manchester Family Court, Clerk Mary Barton, Judge Prevett (being sued federally), Domestic Violence Coalition, Judge Ellen Joseph, Judge Cabrera, and Referee Maloney. It would appear that they are attempting do this at this Court as well, and have so far succeeded.

Striking Pleadings

  1. As brought to the attention of this Supreme Court in the DV Appeal, Cornell Law States – “Under Rule 12(f), a part of a pleading can be removed if it is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.” It makes no mention of “lateness”. Regardless, there is an “automatic extension” in Supreme Court Rules, and Attorney Ames would not assent. This was requested and show her Professionally Misconduct in the attachments, along with a 12/19/22 signed, unrebutted affidavit under the pains of perjury notice to Clerk Barton, which she ignored. Still, I need to know exactly what caused the court to grant this.
  2. Striking my amended appeal would be akin to hiding evidence and a clear violation of Due Process. It is also illegal, federally. All courts and this State MUST adhere to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, memorialized in  a DV Task Force Report.

Amended Pleadings – 21 Days

) Amendments Before Trial.

(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course no later than:

(A) 21 days after serving it, or

(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.

(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.

  1. Supreme Court Rules – Automatic Extensions comport with FRCP 15 except for requirements of parties to assent. A brief is a pleading is a petition, and protected under the 1st Amendment and common sense.

This Court erred substantially when it struck my DV Brief.  Because of this, I have been defamed across the State – Police, Government, Friends and Family. This fraud has still not been corrected. Abuse on the Tanguay Children continues at the hand of this court.

Pattern of Violation of Law

The State Supreme Court and Lawyers consistently violate both state and federal law. I told them about this in a recent pleading and with my April 2nd Court Date for a parking ticked, where I also gave notice of Judicial Misconduct, which every judge, clerk and lawyer is required to report.

Rules of Evidence Apply for $10 Parking Tickets, but not Family Court or the “Civil Bullet” Civil Protection Orders

Looking for advocate – hire a good lobbyist. Learn about Robert Tanguay and his business services.

author avatar
Robert Tanguay
Author of "Incentives and the Environment" and founder of EmissionsTax.