FROM OUR PRINTED MARCH 2025 EDITION
New Hampshire Spotlights Need to End Judicial Immunity in the US
by Alice Giordano
For a closeup look at what is going on at the national level with lawless judges and all their gatekeepers trampling on the Constitution in their desperation to hide corruption ‒ just look to New Hampshire ‒ a poster child for ending judicial immunity.
In the so-called Live Free or Die state, exists an outrageously illegal and unprecedented rule that permits family court judges to thumb their noses at the state’s rules of evidence.
It is gasoline on an already raging fire fueled with flagrant malfeasance that rides roughshod over basic rights.
In New Hampshire, a twisted crusade to gaslight a parent and engage them in an ultimate battle for their children’s lives is like a family court version of Hunger Games.
As I recently told the state’s Child and Family Law Committee, in my 30-year career as a reporter, I have never come across anything so corrupt as the New Hampshire Family Courts.
“It is a system that is not riddled with honest mistakes, but rather comprised of abhorrent people with a deliberate fetish for arrogating lawless decisions, impoverishing parents, willfully traumatizing children and putting them in danger, all to carry out personal agendas and line the pockets of a cottage industry comprised of greedy club members and all its gatekeepers,” I testified.
It was at a hearing on a bill to end the state’s Family Court cabal and turn its litigations over to a real court of law where Daubert tests, voire dires, actual trials take place and parties not judges choose their witnesses.
Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to say much more.
Committee chairman or rather, Lordship Mark Pearson, practically threatened anyone who dared speak a word past his three-minute rule, to feed them to a pit of lions. That is, if you weren’t part of his echo chamber.
Last year, this veteran gatekeeper and for the record ‒ elected by the people ‒ allowed a Family Court judge to drone on for more than 30 minutes at a hearing on court reform bills while parents had to ramble off their life of ruin in 180 seconds.
This time was no different.
Pearson, sounding more like a wannabe defense attorney for the Family Court system than an elected protector of families, announced there would be “a rebuttal witness” that would cap off the public hearing. In the same breath, he announced his preplanned guest would not be held to his three-minute autocracy.
It turned out to be none other than (drum roll please) Erin Creegan, a lawyer for the New Hampshire Judicial Branch.
The 15 minutes dedicated to her marshaled appearance dripped of damage control and a chance to portray victims of the court as just poor confused people who need vainglorious functionaries to help them find their way to the front door.
The only thing missing from the schmoozefes was the fireplace and armchair. It was a stark contrast to the contemptuous hand waving and short-tempered tongue lashings parents got from Pearson.
Creegan added some comic relief ‒ promising complaints about judges are taken seriously.
Swept under the rug was the chronic wet finger review judges use over constitutionally-guaranteed due-process rights.
Back in 2023, Pearson in fact patently wrote that judges should keep their discretionary power when it comes to admitting evidence ‒ altogether missing the point that they don’t even consider evidence to omit in the first place.
Cicero’s fallacy “ipse dixt,” “I say so, therefore, it is,” kind of comes to mind, doesn’t it.
In fact … 20 bucks to anyone who can find a case in New Hampshire where a Family Court judge plied even one of the litany of mandates under NH RSA 461-A ‒ the very governing law of all private custody matters in the good old Granite State.
Sound familiar? It’s just a local version of the federal judges who abused their power in a desperate attempt to abet Washington, D.C. bureau-rats in a massive cover-up for fraud and the plethora of dirty hands with greed caked underneath their fingernails in the cookie jar.
Trump’s newly appointed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi will likely lead a long overdue inquest into the activities of federal judges, but it is highly unlikely state attorney generals will follow suit.
Lawmakers thus need to start spearheading constitutional amendments to end the unbridled immunity judges gave themselves, since ‒ like the infamous ring in The Lord of Rings ‒ this immunity has proven to be far too seducing for the dark overlords of our judicial system.
Enough with treating judges like gods.
As former Trump attorney Alina Habba said, “if we don’t stop corruption in courtrooms, it doesn’t matter what your politics are.”
Alice Giordano is a reporter for Newsmax Magazine and a former reporter for The Epoch Times and Associated Press. Her commentaries can be heard daily on Newsweek’s Topic of the Day. She also is a Broadside columnist.
