I have never been a political person. I am certainly not an attorney or legal expert trained in any manner. For almost 20 years of my career, I have been educated and trained in mental health. Choosing a career advocating and representing the interests of the mentally incapacitated whose lives have intersected with the court system. My specialty was to take on the most high conflict and difficult matters often refused for appointment by others professionals who simply did not have the time or the desire to mire themselves in the difficulties that often come along with those who are in crisis and conflict and the often numerous, well-meaning (and sometimes not so well-meaning) others around them involved in the conflict.
For over 15 years of practice, I enjoyed an excellent reputation for taking on tough matters and effectively resolving difficult situations. Despite complaints over the years, many of which were reviewed by the court or appropriate state agency, I cannot recall there was ever a finding I acted in any way that was unethical, inappropriate or caused harm to any client or other individual.
When it came to matters of improper procedure, missed filings or other oversights on my part, I could always rely on the evenhandedness of experienced judges and on the terrific staff at the circuit court to guide me through. Always confident the issue at hand would be addressed fairly and with justice. Always being afforded appropriate leeway as a pro se professional. Always in the interest of addressing the matter at hand and the welfare of the individual I was serving, rather than the cause of legalism.
I understand the difficulties judges often face when trying to sort out difficult matters that are more the result of family and marital conflict and where the rules of law do not apply so much as evenhandedness and an ability to detach from the emotional conflict in order to reach a just decision that often leaves one party very unhappy. Judicial discretion in these instances is necessary and often a preponderance of the evidence is the only basis on which to make a ruling.
This makes it more horrible that my career, practice and reputation have been destroyed by the words of an administrative judge who singlehandedly established, directed and ultimately made public, findings that destroyed not only my livelihood and reputation, but also took away my ability to work in any capacity for which I was educated, trained and successfully practiced for over 15 years. The extraordinary public dissemination of his findings have made it all but impossible for me to even find work in an unrelated field. It is because of the permanency of what was done, that three years later, I am coming forward to respond to the slanderous and defaming statements made about me in such a public manner which, in this day of social media, continue to leave a cloud of suspicion and distrust.
The most dangerous lies are the ones that contain just enough truth to make it plausible. Have there been mistakes and missteps on my part? No question. I would make a lousy secretary.
There is a presumption that when a judge publishes and order or other type of finding, that the matter has been thoroughly examined with all evidence and all sides having been heard. There is a presumption that the judge is acting as an arbitrator of the law when there are two disputing parties, whether they be individuals or institutions. Our judicial system is crafted to ensure justice by use of a well vetted process established to ensure that all parties are heard and that every stone has been overturned prior to any decision that will limit the rights and autonomy of any individual or institution. In this instance, a court administrator, holding himself out as a judge, circumvented the well-established due process in order to meet his own ends. Every citizen should be concerned, not only with what happened to me, but with what has happened to a judicial system when the actions of administrators are left unchecked due to political pursuits, cowardice and apathy.
Most people are not aware of what an administrative judge is and the duties that go along with the position. Here in the State of New Hampshire, the authorities of Edwin Kelly as administrative judge are limited by law to: “exercising supervisory powers over judges, clerks, registers and court personnel” and “preparing the court budget requests and supervising the financial affairs of the court”. I neither worked for the court, nor was I paid from court funds.
In early 2015, Edwin Kelly, by administrative order, imposed on private practice guardians a set of administrative orders intended to control private practices by limiting rates for services, how many hours we could work and how many clients we could serve. His rules also barred citizens from choosing the guardian of their choice for themselves or their loved one. It should be noted that the two private guardianship agencies in the state were exempt from all of these orders.
These administrative orders effectively vacated existing lawful orders of the individual probate courts. This is an important point in that Edwin Kelly, in the absence of due process or any of the other required administrative laws or rules, unilaterally and with no accountability, took it upon himself to circumvent any lawful process already available to address whatever concerns he may have had.
The implementation of these rules on private guardians, was a gross misuse of administrative authority. I am aware of one time prior when administrative judges attempted to use administrative orders on private practitioners. The immediate uproar from the effected professionals resulted in the administrative order being vacated three days later.
In response to the administrative orders, and out of necessity, I filed petitions with the individual courts seeking to keep my long standing rates for services and asking for clarification as to the authority of an administrative judge to vacate standing orders for rate of pay and administrative orders in general. I also approached Senator Sharon Carson, chair of the Senate Judiciary committee to propose that, much like other professionals, rules and guidelines overseeing the practice of court appointed guardians, be put in place. She agreed not only that Edwin Kelly had overstepped his authority, but that crafting professional rules for guardians was worth consideration. In the summer of 2015 the proposed bill to study the matter was developed and filed.
Within a few weeks, I received a letter from Edwin Kelly requesting an informal hearing so he could decide what sanctions to impose in connection with two matters. Matters that had already been adjudicated.
Despite Edwin Kelly’s assertion that upon calling a disciplinary hearing, I objected through my attorney, the truth of the matter is, after consideration and discussion with counsel, and despite my reservations, I agreed to cooperatively engage in a review of the matters, expecting fairness and believing that the worst case scenario was being removed from the list of professional guardians available for appointment.
Edwin Kelly himself did not conduct the hearing, but instead appointed a “special administrator” and crafted guidelines to develop a disciplinary process. I will not address the findings of the special administrator, except to point out his use of professional conduct rules for attorneys specifically allows for re-examination of underlying trial court findings. As an attorney, the special administrator, should have known that failing to advise me or my counsel of his intention to apply professional conduct standards for attorneys until after the hearing and then disallow the rights ensured under those standards reflects, in my opinion, the problems with any court administrator who takes it upon himself to craft a process outside of the law.
The basis for the special administrator’s recommendations was rooted in the limitations of the process. The conclusions of the special administrator’s recommendations were even further distorted by Edwin Kelly. His characterization of my decision to move a significantly demented woman according to well established clinical and ethical protocols, as “engaging in subterfuge and lies” is especially ridiculous. Any family who has endured the tragedy of a loved one deteriorating into dementia, knows that often, engaging in “subterfuge and lies” is a daily event and so very necessary to ensure the health and well-being of someone who does not understand what is happening to them moment to moment. These families also understand, that the opinion, preferences and demands of people on the outside should be considered, but in no way should the well-being of a loved one be compromised in order to keep peace with facility staff and administrators. This is not only common sense but well established clinical practice routinely used by guardians, family members, facility staff and hospitals and is a basic ethical standard to which all guardians must adhere.
It was never conceived of, by either me or my counsel, that the special administrator would recommend I be removed from all cases and that Edwin Kelly would so far overreach his administrative authority as to take away my ability to work in any capacity for which I was educated or trained. It was never conceived of that in an unprecedented manner he would disclose so publicly his findings to over 100 individuals and agencies without consideration I should first be allowed to review and dispute his findings. It was never conceived of that the disciplinary process would be made public record, including private health information.
In the NH Supreme Court decision on my appeal, itemized were all the important issues, most of them related to the basic due process rights of a citizen. Despite acknowledgement of the important issues to be decided, the high court dismissed the entire matter on the basis of some innocuous determination that being taken off the list of certified guardians through an organization in Pennsylvania- who themselves did not review the findings- was sufficient reason to dispose of the entire sticky matter. After the dismal response from the NH Supreme Court, I brought the entire matter to the attention of the Administrative Rules Committee. This is entity charged with development and implementation of administrative rules after public hearings where all parties can be heard. Their response was similar to that of the Supreme Court. “at this time we will take no action”.
What happened over two years in the aftermath of the publication and dissemination of Edwin Kelly’s finding, opened my eyes to just how confidently judges are engaging in some pretty egregious behaviors that continue to go unchecked primarily due to the financial limitations of most every citizen to pursue a matter before the supreme court and, in my opinion, apathy on the part of individuals and other entities to engage in oversight. Non-guardianship matters were transferred to the docket of the deputy administrative judge, while at the same time was hearing those matters, was testifying opposite me before the Senate Judiciary Committee. On two occasions, hearings were held on the reasonableness of my fees with the judge (former counsel for the administrative judges) blatantly noting in the orders that I was not present or even noticed of the hearings where evidence and testimony was taken resulting in repayment of thousands of dollars in fees. Old matters were opened with invitations from the judge for adversarial parties to file motions. Service rates approved by one judge, were retroactively reduced by another. In one matter I was ordered to continue work with payment being credited toward a balance of retro-actively reduced fees going back two years.
Not a single attorney in the state of NH was willing to take on any matter in which I was a party. Only a few have been honest enough to state there was no way their firm would allow them to cross the administrative judges, because they are also sitting judges. I went as far as to obtain an attorney in Boston, who reviewed the matter and felt strongly this was something worth pursuing. Unfortunately, he subsequently declined the matter after the firms’ estate department in NH got wind of it. After several months of trying to find an attorney willing to take on this matter or other matters, I was told point blank by a well-known and respected attorney that, “no attorney in NH will take this on. They are too afraid of the Judges”
In the words of the late Supreme Court Judge Louis D. Brandeis, “Publicity is justly commended as a social remedy for industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”
Without the assistance of courageous legal professionals and the financial resources to engage assistance, there is little that can be done to salvage my career, reputation and restoration of the tremendous financial losses. The best I can do at this point is bring to the attention of my fellow citizens the quiet corruption that has infected our judiciary and legal profession.
What have we come to when the judicial system has created in the very advocates we depend on, a fear of professional retaliation? How can we depend on those advocates of the law to adhere to their ethics of zealous representation, when their own professional and financial interests may be at stake? More than once when pressing for a reason why so many attorneys were afraid to challenge Edwin Kelly, I was told, because the legal community knew he would do to them what he did to me. I know there are others out there who are aware of what is going on, either because they experienced it themselves, watched it happen to others, or were witnesses to what was going on behind closed doors.
The irony is Edwin Kelly himself has engaged in exactly what he has accused me of. A callous disregard for the rights of individuals subject to his authority. His actions highlight the public policy concern of judges over-reaching their authority with no checks and balances, imposing instead their own authority as they see fit, believing they are above any need for the checks and balances created when citizens engage in the proper establishment of laws, rules and policy.
Have we come so far as to allow a single judicial administrator to develop, implement and execute a process by which a citizen’s career, reputation and livelihood are destroyed with no oversight or checks and balances to ensure fairness or justice? Have we come so far as to lower the bar of the preponderance standard to a hairsbreadth from the judicial systems of a third world country, where the whims of judicial authority serves itself, rather than the cause of justice or the truth as best we can determine? Where there is no appeal to a higher authority due to financial constraints or politics? Where citizens are left to suffer and abuse of authority imposed by those entrusted to set a standard of truth and justice at the highest bar possible?
There is not enough space in this editorial to demonstrate the untruthfulness of the egregious findings Edwin Kelly has made against me and the dubious process he set up. For anyone who wishes to see my response and supporting documents refuting the findings against me, they can be found at jeannettemarinonhguardian.com.
Here on this site, I am making available to any interested party, the details of the allegations made against me and my response. Each response contains links to extensive documentation refuting the basis for the findings.