Appeal of Penny S. Dean

QUESTIONS PRESENTED......................................... 1

Did the Department act unlawfully and unreasonably or engage in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when there is no rule, policy or regulation that prohibits a Hunter Education Instructor from asking a Conservation Officer a question during a Hunter Education Class, yet Dean was terminated for that very reason? Rec 0883, 1352, 1353-1391.

Did the Department act unlawfully and unreasonably or engage in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when on January 5, 2023 it revoked Dean’s Hunter Education Certification effective January 15, 2023 prior to any hearing in this matter? Rec 0001-0002 Did the Department act unlawfully and unreasonably or engage in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when it had previously allowed later terminated Hunter Education Instructors to continue to teach when they were prohibited from handling firearms, yet immediately suspended Dean who was not even alleged to have violated, or even been accused of violation any laws and was and is not a prohibited person? Rec 0236, 0611, 0879, 0911, 1286 L1-8, 1415 Did the Department act unlawfully and unreasonably or engage in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when it mistreated Dean because of her gender, and in retaliation for her exercise First and Second

Amendment and protected political activities in many instances testifying against the Department’s position on legislation? Rec 939 L15-24, 974 L9-1, treated differently, 1003 L10-18, 1071-1072, 1240 L1-12.

Did the Department act unlawfully and unreasonably or engage in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when it retaliated against Dean for her [or requests attributed to her] protected Right to Know requests of the Department? Rec 0645, 0717, 0872, 0911, 1129 L15- 25, 1240 L1-12, 1260, 1272, 1521-1522 [2011].

Did the Department act unlawfully and unreasonably or engage in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when it credited any of the testimony of St. Pierre [and Joshua McKay] who seemed to have amnesia and a poor memory of the detail of the events in question? Rec 0876 ¶2, 0897, 913, 921, 922, 1051, 1054 L 23, 1064, 1067 L 4, 1068 L1-6, 1069 L 14-20, 1077 L1-21, 1178 L1-2, 1213 L6-11, 1216 L 20-25, 1217 L1-4. 1249 L21-25, 1250 L1-3.

Did the hearing officer act unlawfully and unreasonably or engage in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when he failed to find that it was St. Pierre’s eggshell cranium, oversensitive ego and pride hurt by Dean’s reasonable questions? Rec 0919, 0925 ¶1, 953 L4-8, 1244.

II. Combined questions Did the Department act unlawfully and unreasonably or engage in an unsustainable abuse or exercise of discretion when Department Executive Director Mason, purported author of the January 5, 2023 letter and decision maker of Dean’s punishment, was allowed to act as a hearing officer in this matter? Rec 0059, 0375, ¶1, 097 L20, 0939 L15-25, 0 926, 0932-0934, 936 L14-19, 937 L19-25, 938 L1-4, 964 L21-25.

III. Combined questions Did the Department act unlawfully and unreasonably or engage in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when it refused to make native format electronic copies of e-mail available to Dean in discovery?

Rec 0313, 0335 c., 0336, 0337, 0378, 0382, 0396, 397, 400, 0555, 0557, 0558, 0585, 942 L10-25, 943 L18-25, 944 L 1-24, 945 L15- 25, 947 L3-8, L 14-46, 951 L3-25. 952 L1-12, Did the Department act unlawfully and unreasonably or engage in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when it allowed the Department’s Colonel Jordan to unilaterally alter the letters as drafted by the hearing officer to be sent to the only known witnesses of the events in the matter? Rec 399 ¶5, 484-494, 0560, 564, 569- 580, 631, (initial request 953 L1-4 and 956-957 L23-25, L1-5, 962 L4 L6-18), 954 L1-24, 955 L6-25, 965 L10-15, L22-24, 1001 L16- 19, 1003 L1-9, 1010 L22-25.

IV. Combined questions Did the Department act unlawfully and unreasonably or engage in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when the Department refused to aid Dean or require Department employees who were sitting and watching the May 23, 2023 hearing, and who had been participants in the January 5, 2023 letter writing to Dean, and arguably part of the decision making to testify? Rec. 945 L1-14 [preliminary], 1033. Did the Department act unlawfully and unreasonably or engage in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when it refused to make Department employees who were authors/editors of the January 5, 2023 letter to Dean and who clearly lied about the existence of an e- mail, testify and be subject to cross examination? Rec. 948 L 14-17.1 Was Dean’s right to due process, violated or did the hearing officer act unlawfully or unreasonably and engage in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when he refused to instruct NHFG witnesses to testify and to use his power and authority to compel documents and witness testimony or allow Dean to compel other witnesses to testify. The essence of Due Process is that both parties should be on an equal footing before the State. Rec 0399 ¶2, 0856, 0868, 0925, 940 L6-25, 944 L22-25, 945 L11047 L 8-11, 989 L17-24, 990 L13- 14, 1002 L4-12, 1010 L8-18, 1234 L1-25, 1235 L1-12. 1 A lie by omission or commission or ignoring issue is still dishonesty.

State of New Hampshire Fish and Game Department has statuary direction and liability insurance protecting the Instructor from liability pursuant to RSA 214:23-c, which provides that “Each instructor authorized by the executive director to conduct the program for training in safe handling of firearms shall be covered by liability insurance protecting him from liability for damages during the time when instruction is being furnished. The cost of such insurance shall be borne by the state and shall be a charge against the fish and game fund.”

“Hunter Education Program Fact Sheet New Hampshire was the second state to institute a Hunter Education course in 1953. New Hampshire Fish & Game's volunteer Hunter Education instructors have trained over 100, 000 individuals since 1963 when Hunter Education became mandatory for 16-19 year olds. Approximately 500 volunteer instructors teach an average of 130 courses annually. Approximately 3000 students complete the course each year. The Hunter Education course is sponsored solely by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department but funding for the program does not come from license sales. The program is funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife. The state matches federal dollars from the grant with the value of volunteer time. The grant requires a 25% match. The Act that funds the program is called the Sportfish and Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937). Funds are derived from an excise tax on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment. Each state is allotted a certain percentage based upon the land area of their state and the

number of licensed hunters.” Rec 0246, funds of which come to the agency from Hunter Education Instructors volunteer hours. See 50 C.F.R. Part 80. Subpart A. §802 definition of “agency” which means a State fish and wildlife agency [or any other state agency designated by a state] that “… applies for the grant and carries out grant-funded activities in programs authorized by the Acts. The State fish and wildlife agency acts on behalf of the State government, which is the legal entity and is accountable for the use of Federal funds, matching funds, and matching in-kind contributions.” II. The January 5, 2023 Letter-No Investigation Needed Notably, the Letter Appellant UPS mailed date received on or about January 6 or 7th with required that a hearing request be received by NHFG by January 10, 2023, giving Appellant at best four total days to request a hearing.

Despite much research nationwide, Appellant has not found a case of a Hunter Instructor revocation of certification appeal. Appellant can only believe that because the position is that of a volunteer, many of those who volunteer cannot afford to spent tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees and literally hundreds of hours of their time contesting the revocation if those instructors are treated as this Appellant has been treated. A letter from Scott Mason, the then Executive Director of New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (“NHFG”) of January 5, 2023

(“Letter”) to Penny Dean “Appellant”, who was, until receipt of the letter, a Volunteer Hunter Education Instructor (“Instructor”) since August of 2006. Addendum (“Add”) 12. The Letter provided, in part, “your certification is terminated immediately” & “revoked effective January 15, 2023”& “effective immediately” & “suspended” all in the same letter! Add 1-2, G2. The letter claimed in sum and substance that The letter Dean received, Add G(2) following 2, required Appellant to request a hearing by January 10, 2023, a mere five days after the date on the letter. The letter on pages 1-2 in the NHFG Administrative record is not the letter received by Appellant, but rather a draft or alternate version of the Letter. Appellant repeatedly2 referenced the very first paragraph of the NHFG letter to Appellant which said, "Based on phone conversations, 3 written accounts, 4 and email correspondence between the Fish and Game hunter education coordinator, an individual at the class, and a law enforcement officer." Rec 955 L22-25 Two conversations and two “written” reports/e-mail that were almost identical authored by St. Pierre. That was it. There never was any e-mail correspondence between the Fish and Game hunter education coordinator, an individual at the class, and a law enforcement officer”. Never. NEVER. Why this lie? NHFG Director Mason (“Mason”), Kevin Jordan (“Jordan”) etc. had countless opportunities to tell the truth-that there was 2 Rec 956 L1-10.

3 The record disclosed TWO conversations had occurred regarding the September 18 class, one from St. Pierre to Mackay one from Bover to Makay well after the Letter had been sent. 4 Two “written” accounts, both by St. Pierre, one an e-mail and one a Report FIND TERMS

not now, nor had ever been an e-mail referenced in the January 5, 2023 letter. Jordan claimed at the PT that he had not seen an email, Rec. L7-17, but as the “prosecutor/State” in this matter, NHFG Jordan had the duty to inquire about the e-mail, or the lack thereof. Appellant requested that Jordan check with NHFG employees regarding the existence of an e-mail. Rec 960 L8-25, 961 L1-5, 961 L17-24.

Appellant was accused of: “Policy and procedures for the Hunter Education Program are provided in the Hunter Education Instructor Manual.5 This manual is the policy and procedures all instructors receive training on to qualify for certification. Specifically items outlined in the “Instructors Code of Conduct” include:

Rec 1662-63 compare with Rec. 0001-0002 similar letter dated January 3, 2023 which is not the letter received by Appellant dated January 5, 2023. The Motion to Stay Dean’s was noted in the Order, despite the letter having referenced “your certification is terminated immediately” & “revoked effective January 15, 2023”& “effective immediately” & “suspended”. Terminated, revoked, and suspended, all different terms, and with different effective dates, “Dean’s timely request for a hearing automatically stayed the effect of the Department’s decision to terminate Ms. Dean’s volunteer instructor certification” Add 20 ¶4, and “Dean’s request to stay suspension of Ms. Dean’s volunteer instructor certification is hereby denied and the suspension shall remain in effect pending a final 5 Which Instructor Manual and which code of conduct (or overlapping codes) were/are in contention.

decision on termination after a hearing. Suspension is appropriate given the allegations of the Department, which, if demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence at hearing, will result in termination of Ms. Dean’s volunteer instructor certification.” Add 21 ¶2. . This begins with a lie, a big lie. There are mistakes, and there are lies. Rec 0001-0002 provides one in the very first paragraph, notably 1-2 is not the letter that Appellant received.

The Letter claimed that … “Based on phone conversations, written accounts, and email correspondence between the Fish and Game Hunter Education Coordinator, an individual at the class, and a law enforcement officer.” Sounds impressive. The claims are myriad and it would take a book to dissect each claim to show it for its falsity.

Phone conversation(s) appear to be that of Conservation Officer St. Pierre (“St Pierre”), the Conservation Officer at the September 18 Hunter Education Class calling Joshua Mackay, Hunter Education Coordinator for the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (“Mackay”) (Add 1160 L17-18) recounting his version of September 18 and a phone call from Chief Instructor “Bover” to Josh Mackay “Mackay”.

The only “written account(s)” of any type of the September 18 event appear to consist of St. Pierre’s e-mail to Mackay dated October 2, 2022 and the one page “Investigation Incident Report “ by St. Pierre dated January 30, 2023, (after the Letter) Rec 0008, 075, 0391, 1525.

“[E]email correspondence between the Fish and Game Hunter Education Coordinator, an individual at the class, and a law enforcement officer.” This lie was not disclosed until approximately May 2023 right before the hearing. A word count of the Letter shows 652 words. A word count of the portion of the Letter referencing the e-mail in the first paragraph, 20 words of a total of 81 words in the

paragraph. ¼ of the first paragraph contains a very specific and direct statement pertaining to the existence of an e-mail between an individual at the class, NHFG Hunter Education Coordinator (Joshua Mackay) and a law enforcement officer. Appellant, understandably wanted to see that e-mail. That e-mail never existed. Mackay testified “…once I got the email [from St. Pierre] and had the conversation [with St. Pierre]” was enough to make a determination to terminate Appellant, no need to speak to anyone else or investigate…Rec 1206 L10-23. “A law enforcement officer gave me a description of events, and I believed him, correct.” Rec 1206 L22-23. Dean was not allowed to probe the two witnesses, St. Pierre and Mackay and was highly restricted her in cross-examination. Rec 1206- 1207 L18-25, L1-8.

“I sent it up the chain of command. I felt that the ultimate decision should come from somebody above me -- my position.” Rec 1207 L13- 15 Mackay could not recall being in any meetings from September 18, 2022 to the present day [May 2023] to discuss the Appellant’s matter. Rec 1207-1208 L20-25, L1-5 A viewing of the video Appellant had made of the hearings would easily show some, if not all of the NFGH employees, such as Laura Ryder, at the hearing yet not one offered that there never was an e-mail. These NHFG employees’ involvement in the writing of the Letter was documented through e- mails in discovery. Rec 0871 ¶3. Beginning November 3, 2022 about six weeks after September 18, 2022, at rocket speed, e-mails began to be passed around and reviewed by NHFG employees Nicola Whitley, Laura Ryder, Scott Mason, Kevin

Jordan and Diedre Grimes. Rec 0871 ¶3. The first meeting now known to Appellant was November 9, 2022. Rec 0872 ¶2.

“The decisions to be made are, do we council Ms. Dean first, or should we simply send a letter letting her know why she is being dismissed.

I have attached the documentation, in case you have not had a chance to review them, in regards to this specific incident along with the supporting documentation of hunter education policy and procedures for Instructor conduct.

Thank You and see you on Wednesday.

Laura Ryder” The attachments (of which undersigned has repeatedly said she cannot verify without electronic copies of the emails in native format) were 1. CO Kenneth St Pierre email.docx; 2. Hunter Education fis 1200 Instructor Dismissal.docx; 3. Fish and Game Volunteer Code of Ethics.pdf; 4. First page HE Manual Instructor Code of Conduct.docx; and 5. Second Page HE Manual Instructor Code of Conduct.pdf. Rec. 0872 NHFG would implicitly suggest that this Court believe that of only five documents reviewed in the writing of the letter to Appellant, none of them an e-mail that the NHFG director, and the top brass at NHFG ‘overlooked’ that provision of the letter. Rec. 872, 949 L4. III. There is no e-mail from an individual at the class on the list of attachments for the November 9, 2022 meeting, nor are there any other documents that were later referenced in the Dean Termination matter listed as attachments. Rec 0872. Despite this fact, the very first paragraph of the Letter references an e-mail The parties who were sent and

copied on the e-mail from Laura Ryder, the PA Education programs Supervisor regarding the November 9, 2022 meeting were:

2. Director, Jordan, Kevin J <Kevin.J.Jordan@wildlife.nh.gov> Colonel 3. Whitley, Nicola Nicola.L.Whitley@wildlife.nh.gov, 4. Grimes, Deirdre Deirdre.L.Grimes@wildlife.nh.gov and 5. Haskell, Tanya <Tanya.L.Haskell@wildlife.nh.gov. There were no disclosed meeting notes, agenda, attendance records or other documentation of the single meeting disclosed. As of November 9, 2022 before the decision was made regarding Appellant or the January 5, 6 2023 letter was drafted these individuals knew or should have known, there was no e-mail. There was no further physical meetings in the record. There was a series of a large number of e-mails sent and received by the group over six weeks or so among various combinations of these individuals discussing and editing the Letter. Rec 0871¶3, 873.

Various individuals reviewed the Letter before it was sent to Appellant. Rec. 0856-857. Laura Ryder, Edu. Programs Supervisor, Diedre Grimes, Nicole Whitley, and Director Mason Rec. 0856-857. Rec. 0929. At least four weeks passed and dozens of e-mails regarding the Letter, none of which mention an “email correspondence from someone at the 6 Note that the letter dated January 3, 2023 included in the NHFG Administrative record is not the letter received by Appellant.

class a student” or anyone else pertaining to September 18, and yet the second sentence of the Letter claiming “email from an individual at the class” in the Letter does not appear to be edited, questioned or changed. At least the five high level NHFG employees who received the e-mail regarding November 9, 2022 meeting knew or should have known there never was an e-mail.

According to discovery “on May 19, 2023 undersigned was informed [in person] by Mr. Jordan and his counsel [Mark Lucas] that there is not now, nor was there ever an e-mail as referenced in the January 5, 2023 letter to Dean.” Please let that sink in. It is momentous. It was not until Mackay testified in May of 2023 that someone from NHFG finally admitted, under oath that there was no e-mail. Rec 1184 L5-10. Who knew what when Pierre testified that prior to the September class, he had never met nor heard of Appellant. Yet, St. Pierre’s October 4, 2022 e-mail to Mackay claimed “It is to my knowledge that this is not the first or even the second instance of this behavior from this individual. As her position as an instructor is ‘meerely [sic] a volunteer position, I highly recommend that she [be] told her assistance is no longer needed. Please let me know if you need anything else.” Rec 1340 (emphasis supplied) That claim was later “explained” by the January 30, 2023 St. Pierre Report written after the Letter had been sent to Appellant. . The Order has many factual errors, the class was not in Wolfeboro, (Rec 896 A) but was a half hour away, at Winnipesaukee Sportsmen’s

Club, in Moultonborough. Rec 955 L1-3, 1037 L1-2, 1059 L1-2, 1099 L3- 4, 1108 L10, 1339, 1340, 1525. The Hearing Officer’s finding of what “Ms. Mackay” (Rec 901 L10) found without any investigating whatsoever was what was determined at the hearing, so no harm no foul. Mackay didn’t need to investigate, does not comport with due process. Rec 901. The Hearing Officer’s ignoring of Jordan’s editing of the letters to students speaks volumes. Rec 409, 472, 484-494.

Appellant did not “interrupt” St. Pierre, St. Pierre, admitted Appellant raised her hand. Rec 897 vs. 1075 L21-25. The Hearing Officer’s determination that Appellant “interrupted” (Rec. 897) St. Pierre’s presentation does not square with the testimony. St. Pierre testified that Appellant raised her hand [and was recognized]. Appellant was an Instructor. She did not have or need to establish her status as equal to or greater than St. Pierre but rather had an obligation to do her best to educate the students and asking questions when one is confused or does not know the answer is good modeling behavior. The Hearing Officer’s ascribing to Appellant a “motivation” to contradict St. Pierre’s statement of the law is not supported by the testimony. Appellant was asking St. Pierre to clarify his muddled and arguably incorrect interpretation of the law in order that the students were clear on such an important interpretation of the law. Mackay testified that he “maintains data on the classes, the number of students, failure rates, things like that, incident rates.” Rec 1162 L45-7. There is no objective standard for “master” instructors Rec 1162 L9-14.

Rec 1187-1188 L 23-25, L1-2l. No objective standard, just Mackay’s designation.

The Hearing Officer inaccurately cherry picks Code of Conduct provisions and training. “This is precisely what the Code of Conduct prohibits and why, as Mr. Mackay testified, volunteer instructors are trained not to answer questions during the law package presentation.” Rec 898 ¶1. No evidence Appellant was answering questions, she was asking questions. Laura Ryder is Mackay’s supervisor, and he turned the decision pertaining to the Appellant’s instructor status to her. Nicole Whitley is Ryder’s Supervisor, (Rec 1189 L 24), Mason is Whitley’s boss. Rec 1189- 1190 L25, L1-4.

Mackay determined that “open criticism” and “heated disagreements” applied to the exchange after hearing only one side of the story, . Pierre has claimed Appellant “argued” with him. Rec 1182 L14-23, 1183 L1-3. Even though Mackay is the program coordinator, the position that is to make the determination as to Instructor termination, Mackay did not make the decision to terminate Appellant. Rec 1185 L1-18. No need for trials or hearings, if a CO says its so, fine ‘em and jail ‘em. Mackay claimed that “I continue to train my new instructors was that the law

enforcement presentation is done by law enforcement. St. Pierre did not testify he was afraid someone one would break the law or get killed, Mackay testified that his impression was that was St. Pierre’s concern. Rec 1198 L15-18. I tell all of my instructors that I train do not answer law enforcement questions and not answer any questions from a student that's on the law.” Rec 1185 L 14-18. Appellant was not trained by Mackay in fact was trained years before Mackay was even employed by NHFG. (employed for 13 years Rec 1161 L11-12). Mackay did not know which manuals Appellant had received when. Rec 1194 L19-25, L1-4. Mackay did not know the record retention requirements for Pittman-Robertson funds, the method by which Instructors volunteer hours and travel miles earn million for NHFG. Rec 1190 L16-18. With 420 Instructors (Rec 1189 L1-2) and 40 plus COs7 and Mackay’s SOP appears to take a CO’s word without question. This is no due process or fundamental fairness 101, when a law enforcement officer’s word is valued far above that of a person aka Volunteer Instructor.

“As I said before, once I got email and had the conversation -- Q Yeah.

7 September 21, 2022, Mason letter to Karen Umberger, Fiscal Committee of the General Court, requesting transfer of funds 42 officers; NH Fish and Game Dept./Law Enforcement Division CONSERVATION OFFICERS Patrol Assignments 2024 42 officers.

A -- I felt that decision -- I felt that it violated our policies, procedures, and the code of conduct. I sent it up my chain of command. That ended my involvement. I didn't do any investigation. I didn't contact any of the instructors involved.

Q So what you're essentially saying when you read that, then, is that everything that Mr. St. Pierre said was true, and you're not even going to go ask the other person what happened?

A A law enforcement officer gave me a description of events, and I believed him, correct.” Rec 1206 L10-23. (emphasis supplied) The Order talks about only CO giving law, but how does that square with specialists providing they hold a license or certificate in the area they are teaching. Rec 1532, 1570. Mackay misstates the words of the manual. Which version of the manual controls Appellant was contested. Rec 1167 L 18. Appellant contended the most recent version governed her conduct. Rec 1167 L16-18, L24-25, 1168 L18 L15-22.

Lisa Collins sends out “new” manuals and different versions but the file still says manual 2014. Rec 1167 L15-25. Mackay admitted that he “couldn’t say at this time” that the manual had reached each instructor. Rec 1172 L20-22. Mackay could not testify to exactly what Lisa Collins does. Rec 1188 L16-24. Mackay does not supervise any NHFG employee. Rec 1189 L6-7. Mackay had webinars where all instructor are invited [but not

mandated] to attend. Rec 1173 L3-5. For all of the claimed “confusion” Rec 1177 L7-16, yet St. Pierre could not recall a single student raise their hand. Rec 1177-1178. L23-25, L1-2. Appellant tried to help St. Pierre and she was punished. Rec 1179 L1-4.

Appellant was denied due process and treated differently due to several factors outlined in argument.

No one from NHFG called Appellant to ask her about her version of events before it revoked/suspended/terminated Appellant’s Instructor credentials. Rec 953 L12-18. This matter is rooted in the NHFS’s die-hard devotion to a principle that Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister, ascribed to the British. In an essay entitled “Churchill’s Lie Factory” dated 12 January 1941, Dr. Goebbels wrote: “The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” (Die Zeit Ohne Beispiel [A Time Without Parallel), ”Aus Churchills Lugenfabrik”; Cemtral Publishing House of the NSDAP [German National Socialist Workers’ Party], Munich, 1942, p. 365; the translation may be found at: https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb29.htm [visited on December 30, 2024]). The silence from Hearing Officer Mason (and NHFG employees in the room that knew or should have known there never was an e-mail) was deafening.

There is no evidence in the record that Dean had ever had any let alone “repeated warnings, and consultations”. Appellant would, and does, argue that that is because no such competent or truthful evidence of that type exists! Dean repeatedly asked that Jordan be required to affirmatively state that he had questioned those involved for information and there was none. Rec 966 L7-10, 967 L22-25, 967 L1-5. Dean further stated, “He [Jordan] says he doesn't have emails. Your letter [January 5 2023 letter to Appellant] says there's an email. So I'm going back to the fact and saying I can go through this, but I really would like for Colonel Jordan to be asked to produce these things that I've requested and specifically –“ Rec. 967 L

11-15, (emphasis supplied) yet another opportunity for Hearing Officer Mason, signatory to the Letter to say, ‘there never was an e-mail’ Despite Fis 1200’s clear language that provides an opportunity for a hearing, “ Fis 1202.03 Termination of Instructor Certification. (a) Hunter education volunteer instructor certification shall be revoked after notice and opportunity for hearing for a violation or serious unethical or unsafe behavior to including but not limited to... Dean was not afforded that right.

“We will not permit an agency to add or delete requirements through the mere expedient of interpreting a rule that is clear and unambiguous on its face.” Doe v. N.H. Dep't of Safety, 160 N.H. 474, 477, 999 A.2d 362 (2010) (quotation, brackets, and ellipsis omitted). Here, the rule requires that the school board allow a party or a representative to examine any and all witnesses.” In re Sch. Admin. Unit #£44, 162 N.H. 79, 83, 27 A.3d 819, 823 (2011), as modified on denial of reconsideration (June 22, 2011) Fis administrative rules provide for no timeline to request a hearing, no place or manner in which to request one and many other omissions in procedure. After undersigned sought a hearing on this ‘very simple matter’, a further ‘meeting’ was convened by the Department in February 2023 to further discuss this matter. 8 No minutes of the numerous meeting held by NHFG employees were provided, and it is not known if any were taken. Dean was prohibited under color of law from obtaining that information as she was prohibited from issuing subpoenas, or in any other way compelling witness testimony NHJFG refused to make its employees avail be to testify 8 See general Dean Exhibits 23& 26 a serious of e-mails discussing further meetings.

despite the fact they were sitting in the hearing room (being paid by State tax dollars (?) with no visible role in the matter) “I [Appellant] asked for email correspondence between the Fish and Game hunter education coordinator and a law enforcement officer…” Rec 967-968 L25, L1-2.

Rec 968 L21-25. “I [Appellant] asked for copies of any written statement, signed or unsigned, by anyone interviewed in this matter or a representation by you that you have produced all copies requested. And his answer is, your request has changed. Well, that doesn't answer the request. By refusing to give me anything, do you have anything, is there nothing?” Rec 968 L5-10 L21-25. 969 L 1-5.

The only other written communication in the record from St. Pierre regarding the September 2022 class, “INVESTIGATION REPORT” is dated January 30, 2023 after the decision was made to terminate Appellant’s Instructor credentials and after the Letter sent to Appellant. Rec 1525. This “Report” is a further thinly veiled attempt to smear Appellant and claimed that “Approximately a week later I spoke with Tom Flynn at the Owl Brook Center. I told Flynn what had happened and told Flynn what had happened and he stated that this was not the first complaint he had received about Dean. He asked me to put everything in writing and send it to Joshua Mackay.” Rec 1525. If this was true, that there had been complaints about Appellant before why is the record absent of evidence Appellant had received or answered a complaint(s) before? Occam’s razor would say because it is not true. Why was this “Investigation Report” written in January 2023? Appellant submits to bolster the NHFG’s case, the notable changes between the two documents consists of “did a” vs “taught

the law section” and the addition of “Before I left I had to Interrupt the class, to again cover the 300 foot rules and make sure that the class was not left confused by her outburst.” And added “When I spoke to this Penny just shook her head and kept writing notes”. Rec 1525. The record provides that these two very similar documents signed by St. Pierre are the only written documents in the record of this event. Dean cited both the New Hampshire and United Constitutions, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act as a basis for her requests. Add 10 ¶10. Rec 10, 13, 20, 30, 40, 61, 364, 389, 425, 537, 931. . Bover called Mackay. Mackay told Bover “I told him I can't talk about it.” The only thing Bover said to Mackay “said was that he didn't think the interaction was confrontational.” Rec 1202 L25, 1203 L1. The reasonably suggests two things, first Bover did not know what was happening to Appellant, one of his Instructors, and he did not believe “the interaction was confrontational” dispelling any allegations of poor behavior on the part of Dean or St. Pierre. Rec 1204 L6-12. Despite no investigation on Mackay’s, or anyone else at NHFG’s part, Mackay did not believe Bover because “I believe he wasn't in the room.” Rec 12041 L 14. NHFG could have called, e-mailed etc. Appellant at any time to ask her, for her version of the events of September 2022. It did not do so, why? The decision had already been made, the hearing was merely a necessary formality demanded by Appellant.

Jordan demanded that Appellant "Please produce copies of all communications between you and any other person concerning the incident." Appellant objected. I don't believe that's relevant. This was a

fishing expedition and harassment pure and simple sanctioned by the hearing officer What Colonel Jordan, I think, is objecting to is I'm going to lay down and take this. These other people might have just went away with their tails between their legs. I'm being mistreated, and I'm going to shout it from the mountaintop. So if you're asking me who I emailed my revocation thing to? You're asking me to disclose all my friends and family. How are they relevant to this? Rec 1003 L 10-18. Appellant produced over 4, 000 pages of e-mails, spending much time and effort to do so. Note the lack of those 4, 000 pages in exhibits offered by NHFG, “It is the responsibility of this court to insure that another will is not substituted for that of the legislature when, out of necessity, it delegates certain limited powers. See Ferretti v. Jackson, supra, 88 N.H. at 305, 188

Appellant had modified the volunteer policy agreement in 2011 without objection by Mackay. “And specifically, Mr. Jordan asked about the strike out that I made on Exhibit B. And were you the hunter education coordinator in 2011?

A I was.

Q So you could have, because you're my supervisor, you could have rejected that and said we don't agree with this. You either sign it plain or you're not staying in; couldn't have you?

A I could have.

Q And you review all of these that come in, don't you? A I do.

Q Okay. And as a matter of a fact if someone didn't send that back they received an email from Lisa or some other hunter education person that said hey, you haven't sent your waiver of liability back to me, if someone didn't sent that in --

A I assume that they get a -- THE HEARING OFFICER: Well -- A -- they either got an email or a letter.

Q An email or a letter.

A Yeah.

Q Now, you said your only contact with Mr. St. Pierre regarding this incident was a phone conversation and discussion, correct?” Rec. 1197 L14-25, 1198 L 1-14 St. Pierre's testimony should be almost totally discounted based on his many claims including his inability to remember much about the class.9 “St. Pierre has taught the law portion of Hunter Education Class 10-12 times10 in his [at the time] six year career, including his training in law at the 172nd NHSP Academy made his legal training is equal to that of a member of the New Hampshire bar 'I was hired by Hampshire Fish[ing] and Game[s] in 2016. I attended the 172nd Police Academy in 2017. During my time as a training, I learned and was trained on all aspects of the career, which boils down to enforcement of hunting laws, fishing laws, OHRV, snowmobile, boating, pretty much all laws in the state. As a part of my daily job, I'm enforcing those laws, as well as being a public figure and always answering questions regarding laws and rules.' (emphasis supplied).

9 Appellant cannot explain why this section of text appears to be ‘shadowed’. She is working to correct it without success.

10 Rec 1055

Dean- 'Are you saying merely because I said I'm a lawyer, I'm trying to say I'm smarter than you are type thing?' St. Pierre, 'I wouldn't say that. You're trying to say that you're smarter than me, but I have this certification that makes me as equal or better.' Rec 0928 ¶1. (emphasis supplied) “Where, as in this case, the administrative agency is required by statute to make not only general discretionary findings such as the effect of the nuclear facility on esthetics and historic sites, but also complex factual determinations of its effect on regional development, air and water quality, the natural environment and [115 N.H. 174] the public health and safety, the law demands that findings be more specific than a mere recitation of conclusions. Id. at 44-45, (citations omitted)” Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests v. Site Evaluation Committee, 115 N.H. 163, 337 A.2d 778 (N.H. 1975). The Court should consider the choice of words of the witness, words mean things.

'I was looking around the class. I could see that everyone was kind of confused looking at me, looking at her.' (emphasis supplied) You can tell a lot about what a person is thinking just by their body language. St Pierre further claims, 'I told the team that there was time and place to bring up these types of things, and then I would talk to her after the class.' Not surprisingly there was no testimony from 'the team' [the Hunter Education Team Dean taught with present that day, in fact the record shows that NH F&G did not consult or inform Dean's Chief Instructor about this alleged

transgression by Dean and the suspension of Dean's Hunter Education Credentials.

It was only after the lunch break on redirect that St. Pierre, began to articulate specific in slightly more non conclusory terms/behaviors using different language than he had used before and St. Pierre attributed to Appellant behavior that he had not articulated in his e-mail, Investigative Report, direct examination, or cross examination. Rec 1149-1151. The Court should consider this sudden change of language and ‘improved’ allegations.

“For example, the conclusion that the Seabrook facility will not have an unreasonable adverse effect on the natural environment must be supported by specific basic findings of fact delineating the probable effects which the discharge of heated and chemically treated water will have on the plant and animal life in the area.”

Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests v. Site Evaluation Committee, 115 N.H. 163, 337 A.2d 778 (N.H. 1975). “However, we agree with the plaintiff that the supplemental orders 1, 2 and 3 are defective for the same reasons that the order for a ten-day reserve failed, namely that the commissioner has neglected to specify the facts underlying the orders and the record itself does not disclose any evidence other than vague unsubstantiated remarks in their support.” New Hampshire-Vermont Physician Service v. Durkin, 313 A.2d 416, 113 N.H. 717 (N.H. 1973).

This case is a cousin to New Hampshire-Vermont Physician Service v. Durkin, in that there are conclusory opinions, but little facts to support

NHFG’s decision. “In reviewing the May 14, 1973 order and the testimony of the actuary, we are unable to discover any facts other than conclusory opinions to support the position that the ten-day reserve would be adequate. See New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. State, (citations omitted) 1 F. Cooper, State Administrative Law 259-62 (1965); K. Davis, Administrative Law Text § 29.02 (3d ed. 1972).” New Hampshire-Vermont Physician Service v. Durkin, 313 A.2d 416, 113 N.H. 717 (N.H. 1973).

II. 'Confused' students, all 11 (eleven) 24of them, per St. Pierre, would be reasonably expected to ask questions to clarify and alleviate their 'confusion', yet St. Pierre 'didn't remember' if any of the eleven 'confused' students asked a single question about 'permanently occupied' or when and if the NH F&G interpretation of 'permanently' changed.

III. St. Pierre took a 'multiple classes' and a 3-4 hour seminar- twice-for which he cannot recall the title-for which there was no test that taught him how to read faces and facial expressions. St. Pierre could not remember the names of the classes he took, how many hours the classes her took lasted25, that one class was in 2022 at the Wolfeboro Fire Department Conference Room that was the 'exact same course' he had taken before. That is how St. Pierre knew that all eleven Hunter Education students were confused by Dean's question to St. Pierre. Add 1051 L 3-11, L17-25, 1052 L20-25.

In fact, the Hearing Officer, in response to an objection by Dean regarding St. Pierre's ability to successfully recognize confusion on people's faces said,

'I'm going to allow the colonel to continue the questioning so that we can determine whether or not he's [St. Pierre] qualified to see confusion on the faces of a class.'

Are you telling me that you can tell what people are thinking by looking at their face? And that is what he said. I wrote that down. So, for example, you were trained at the academy as a police officer to write accurate reports, were you not, sir?” Add 921-922 No expert disclosures had been made. “It seemed to be about 15- 20[students]. Rec 1054, L15-20. There were 11. “I would say to the best of my recollection it seemed to be 15 to 20; 15 is pretty close to 11.” Rec 1054 L 10-11 St. Pierre also testified that “And you would agree with me sir, that the only people in that room was you, and me, and the students, correct? A Correct, and there were a few adults, who I believe to be the parents.” Rec 1054 L3-6. There is no evidence that parents, or anyone other than the 11 students, Appellant and St. Pierre were in the room during the time in question.

When Appellant asked St. Pierre to define argue, this was his response, “It's not a rule. And definitions, what was I – if I'm arguing, you would say one thing and I would say another thing, right? You would say it's A, and I would say, no, it's B, right? Because that's what an argument is. You agree with me, right? A Yes.

Q Okay. But I actually asked you a question. I said, if this is the case, then why am I seeing these phone calls. I asked you that question, didn't I? A I don't remember, like I said before.” Rec 1121 L20-25, L 1-4.

During cross examination of Mackay, Dean attempted to probe what “I’ll bet Josh has access” Rec 1209 L 3-4, Jordan objected and offered that Mackay was not “on the email” and ‘was not even included on the email” Rec. 1209 L 5, 8, 10-11. Dean was not allowed to question Mackay regarding his electronic access to the e-mails that he was ‘not copied on’. Rec 1211-1212 Jordan would jump in and ask the witness a question during Appellant’s cross-examination without assistance or objection by the Hearing Officer. Rec 1212-1213 L 19-25, L 1-4. Dean was prohibited from asking Mackay questions about the process, and his recollection of meetings just three months before the instant hearing. Rec 1214-1217 Ruling 1217 L5-6.

“Can you tell me where a person -- where a hunter education instructor would know how to find and who their designated supervisor is?

A The hunter education coordinator.

Q Okay, but it doesn't say in the hunter education coordinator there, does it, sir?

A It does. Under source 1987, it says, the hunter education coordinator is an employee of the Fish and Game department and will supervise the undersigned volunteer.” Rec. 1196 L19-25, 1197 L1-2 “Usually, unless a pressing public interest is involved, or the question is "capable of repetition yet evading review, " Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 318, 108 S.Ct. 592, 601, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1987) (citation omitted), an issue that has already been resolved is not entitled to judicial intervention. See Royer v. State Dep't of Empl. Security, (citations omitted).” Appeal of Hinsdale Federation of Teachers, NEA-New Hampshire, NEA, 575 A.2d 1316, 133 N.H. 272 (1990) The public has an interest in having qualified

Instructors of all genders that are not muzzled, afraid that a simple question or request for clarification will offend any one of the more than 40 plus different conservation officers that may attend a Hunter Education Class, not knowing which, if any officer have unreasonably tender sensibilities or egos that are unreasonably and easily offended.

This case presents a version of governmental estopppel in that NHFG expected Appellant to believe there was an e-mail complaining about Appellant from someone in the class to bolster St. Pierre’s allegation against Appellant. “The petitioners next argue that the Council erred when it dismissed their governmental estoppel claim. In order to adequately plead a claim of governmental estoppel, the petitioners had to allege that: (1) DES made a false representation or concealment of material facts with knowledge of those facts; (2) the petitioners were ignorant of the truth of the matter; (3) DES made the representation with the intention of inducing the petitioners to rely upon it; and (4) the petitioners were induced to rely upon the representation to their injury. See Sunapee Difference v. State of N.H., 164 N.H. 778, 792-93 (2013).” In re Newcomb, 2021-0222 (N.H. Aug 05, 2022) Cleary the claim of an e-mail was a false claim and the material fact that there was none was hidden until right before the hearing. “We stress that State agencies must comply with the Administrative Procedures Act if their "rules" are to have effect.” Appeal of John H. and Milena S. DENMAN d/b/a Cheese, etc. (New Hampshire Board of Taxation), 120 N.H. 568, 419 A.2d 1084 (1980) (finding that “There is no indication that the unwritten regulation on which the department relies met any of the basic requirements of our Administrative Procedures Act. RSA 541-A:3 (Supp. 1979).”)

Since this matter was decided the United States Supreme Court has decided Loper Bright Enters v. Raimondo, Sec’y of Commerce, 22-451, 22- 1219 (June 28, 2024), arguably which should at a bare minimum provide guidance to this Court in what if any deference is to be given NHFG’s interpretation of administrative rules.

. Appellant was treated worse than other instructors that had their credentials revoked or non renewed. Rec 591-613. It is axiomatic that the criminal equivalent of this is Brady evidence, and can show disparate treatment by NHFG of Appellant as compared to other Instructors and the Hearing Officer simply made a blanket statement of ‘private information’ without more.

When Jordan was not chiming it, it was a tag team, the Hearing Officer would sometimes offer (or attempt to offer) answers to questions asked of the witness. "Good reason may be shown by new evidence that was unavailable at the original hearing, or by identifying specific matters were either 'overlooked or mistakenly conceived'. Dumais v. State, 118 N.H. 309, 386 A.2d 1269 (1978)." 24, 367 (September 2, 2004) "GLOBAL NAPs, ORDER No. 24, 367, DT 01-127 New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, 24, 367 (September 2, 2004) (NH Public Utility Decisions,

2004) (NH Public Utility Decisions, 2004). Mason conduct throughout the hearing demonstrated his bias.

Appellant was not allowed to complete her answers, being tag teamed by both Jordan and the Hearing Officer with the Hearing Officer interrupting Appellant’s answer to ask if she was testifying or asking a question Rec 1320 L 18-19, when Appellant answered that she was testifying Rec L20-21 Jordan jumped in “I’m all set with your answer, thanks” Rec 1320 L 22. Appellant objected that Jordan should not be allowed to cut off her answer. Rec 1320 L 23.

III.The Department acted unlawfully and unreasonably and engaged in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when it refused to make native format electronic copies of e-mail available to Dean in discovery and acted unlawfully and unreasonably and engage in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when it allowed the Department’s Colonel Jordan to unilaterally alter the letters as drafted by the hearing officer to be sent to the only known witnesses of the events in the matter.

Jordan claimed “This is about as simple as it gets. Three very small facts. None of which involve an email.”11 Rec 949-950 L25, L 1-2. NHFG staff members were asked to produce the emails, not an IT professional. Rec 950 L7-12. Not allowing Appellant to view the numerous emails in their native format was a denial of due process under both the New 11 This was in reference to Appellant’s request for electronic copies of e-mails, not the missing (nonexistent) e-mail.

Hampshire and United States Constitutions. Appellant was forced to accept the printed pdf format e-mails without any methods of verification. On December 5, 2022, Laura Ryder e-mailed the draft letter to Deidre Grimes, Good Afternoon Laura, I hope that you are feeling better. I think that it looks good. I did not hear back from the director about verbiage regarding a hearing. Once Nicola looks at it we can send to the director and ask him Thank you Laura Dee”12 There were many e-mails regarding the details of “Mason’s” January 5, 2023 letter to Dean, on December 5, 2022. “Hi Dee, You have the current fis. rules pertaining to instructor dismissal. I have attached Penny's signed copy of the general "Code of Ethics" that all education program volunteers sign. We keep signed documents in an instructor's file. Josh MacKay has the most recent electronic version of the HE manual if you need to see it. Penny Dean was trained on our 2008 version which I have in hard copy. She was certified in 2007. Updates to policy and procedures are sent to all instructors when they occur. The portion of the manual that covers Instructors' code of conduct has not been changed since Penny was trained. Attached is the portion of the manual I am referencing in the letter.

If you need anything else let me know.

Laura Ryder”13 December 28, 2022, about seven weeks after the November 9, 2022 meeting whereby presumably the ‘final’ decision had been made to terminate Dean, Scott Mason e-mailed Laura Ryder “Laura, Please send me an electronic copy of the letter to Penny Dean. Scott R. Mason”.14 Given that it appears as if the 12 DF&G 000084 -Dean Exhibit 26 13 DF&G 000082-Dean Exhibit 24 14 DF&G 000066- Dean Exhibit 19

time from the writing of the letter to the sending of the January 5, 2023 letter was at least four weeks if not more, and the primary author Laura Ryder, PA Education Programs Supervisor, and editors of the letter Diedre Grimes, Human Resource Administrator and Nicola Whitley, Public Affairs Division Chief were senior staff and the signatory of the letter was the Executive Director, all of them knew or should have known that the letter was not only inaccurate, it was a lie as no e-mail correspondence from a person at the class existed. Both Joshua Mackay, NH Hunter Education Coordinator and Colonel Kevin Jordan were copied on the final version of the letter. Colonel Jordan was copied on, received directly or sent 55 pdf pages of e-mails in this matter from and on (as a minimum). It is reasonable to believe. that volume of e-mails contained more than simple back and forth.

“our review of the CAB's factual findings is deferential. Appeal of Hartford Ins. Co., 162 N.H. at 93. "Our task is not to determine whether we would have found differently than did the CAB, or to reweigh the evidence, but rather to determine whether the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record." Appeal of Carnahan, 160 N.H. 73, 77 (2010) (quotation and brackets omitted).” In re Hoff, 2021-0329 (Sep 08, 2022) Jordan continually tried to muddy the water with factual claims without evidence “I think, quite frankly, we've confused those kids15 enough without dragging them through a court hearing or -- or assemblance of a court hearing here today to have you -- to have them tell you that they were confused over two instructors arguing in front of them, in front of the class.” Rec. 957 L1-24 15 There were more adults than “kids” in the September 18, 2022 Hunter Education Class.

At that point in time the students had not yet been identified, thus NHFG Jordan had no idea as to the age composition of the students nor could he honestly make the argument that the ‘kids’ were confused. We are not talking about young children, in order for one to take a New Hampshire Hunter Education course they must be at least 12 years old. 16 Furthermore, as a parent or guardian must sign agreeing for a ‘kid’ to take the course, which includes live firing on field day, a parent or guardian must believe the ‘kid’ has some level of maturity.

Jordan then claimed “Debate the discussion. I didn't want to drag a child back through that, so we didn't release any information. I have no knowledge today, as I stand here, of anyone that attended that class, other than my officer. I never asked Ofc. St. Pierre if he knew who -- who these children were or what their names were. So they're not witnesses. They're not characterized as witnesses. Witnesses were selected very carefully, and -- and I provided that in discovery. I also provided a very detailed list of what each witness was going to testify to. So she has ample information there to make a defense, a very good defense, against the witnesses that are, in fact, going to testify. I would not release a minor's information to anyone today, unless I was planning on using that individual as a witness.” Rec 958 L 4-18 (emphasis supplied) “You know, I think, again, if we -- if we allow the hearing to unfold, the witness testimony, and the cross-examination, and then if, in fact, it's determined that we need an outside witness, then I -- then I would say we would subject some of these poor kids to further embarrassment and -- and controversy by subjecting them to a private investigator. A private person could tell you to go bounce sand, and there's 16 https://www.wildlife.nh.gov/hunting-nh/hunter-education/hunter-education-frequently- asked-questions

no -- there's nothing anyone can do about that.” Rec 963 L3- 11. (emphasis supplied) Jordan later admitted, “I did ask both Josh [Makay] and Ken St. Pierre if they had any communication with any student that was in the class regarding this and was told they did not.” Rec. 962 L21-23 Hearing Officer Mason, the author of the Letter to Appellant was presiding over the April 11, 2023 Pre-Hearing Conference and he did not once offer that the letter he signed was in error/mistake etc. and there never was an e-mail. How it would be “determined” if the ‘facts’ were clear, that we need an “outside” witness, was never enunciated, and it is based on the opinion and judgment of one person, Conservation Officer St. Pierre.

“And to subject them [the students] to this after the -- after the way that class was taught, I think goes well beyond the scope of -- of relevancy in this hearing.” Rec. 964 L 10-12 (emphasis supplied) NHFG Jordan’s unilaterally altering Dean’s ‘last/only clear chance’ to ask the students to testify to what they saw and heard was deliberately poisoned and destroyed by Jordan’s addition to the letter. If Jordan had honestly believed that his addition to the letter was aboveboard and neutral he could have: Sought permission of the hearing officer to amend the letter Sought agreement from Appellant to amend the letter Amended the letter and then sought permission to send out the amended letter Jordan did none of the above but rather took the sneaky and dishonest route, knowing that you cannot un ring a bell, and that Appellant’s only

chance for other witness testimony would likely be sullied and destroyed, amended the letters adding: “The administrative proceeding is before the Fish and Game Department and is related to a Volunteer Hunter Safety Instructor's certification. The proceeding is not directed toward you or your child or minor dependent. Please be aware that Attorney Dean is a private attorney and neither she nor anyone working on her behalf represents the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department.” to the only known witnesses to the September 2022 class. Jordan sent the letters to the students, and only then copied Appellant on the letters after they were already sent. The damage to Appellant was irreparable. One cannot un ring a bell. Jordan faced absolutely no consequences for his actions. Appellant cannot even contemplate the consequences to her or another private attorney had they done such a thing. Appellant filed DEAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND REINSTATE HER HUNTER EDUCATION INSTRUCTOR... Rec 560- 580. Jordan’s unauthorized addition to the letter poisoned the well by telling the students that the “administrative proceeding” was “related to a Volunteer Hunter Safety Instructor’s Certification” all but saying NHFG was alleging that the “Instructor”, Appellant had done something wrong as the subject of this administrative proceeding related to certification. Rec 569-580. Appellant’s pleas for hearing officer assistance were in vain. "On its appeal, the HFT bears the burden of demonstrating by a clear preponderance of evidence that the PELRB erred as a matter of law, or acted unjustly or unreasonably. RSA 541:13; see Appeal of Boucher, 120 N.H. 38, 40, 411 A.2d 161, 163 (1980)." Appeal of Hinsdale Federation of

Teachers, NEA-New Hampshire, NEA, 575 A.2d 1316, 133 N.H. 272 (1990). This case is textbook example of unjust and unreasonable treatment of an Instructor (Appellant). Jordan is allowed the destroy the only chance Appellant has for evidentiary support as NHFG has already decided the matter based on their actions, writing a letter of termination to Appellant, after all St. Pierre had told them what happened! IV.The Department acted unlawfully and unreasonably and engaged in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when the Department refused to aid Dean or require Department employees who were sitting, presumably being paid by the State, watching the May 23, 2023 hearing, and who had been participants in the January 5, 2023 letter writing to Dean, and arguably part of the decision making to testify, and committed an unsustainable exercise of discretion when it refused to make Department employees who were authors/editors of the January 5, 2023 letter to Dean and who clearly lied about the existence of an e-mail, testify and be subject to cross examination17 violating Dean’s right to due process, and the hearing officer acted unlawfully or unreasonably and engaged in an unsustainable exercise of discretion when he refused to instruct NHFG witnesses to testify and to use his power and authority as their supervisor to compel documents and witness testimony. The essence of Due Process is that both parties should be on an equal footing before the State.

"[an administrative agency's] findings of fact must be treated as prima facie reasonable. RSA 541:13. The administrative action must be affirmed unless it rests upon an error of law or unless the plaintiff carries [its] burden to demonstrate 'by a clear preponderance' that the Board's 17 A lie by omission or commission or ignoring issue is still dishonesty.

resolution of an essential issue of fact was unreasonable."...Appeal of Working on Waste, 577 A.2d 403, 133 N.H. 312 (N.H. 1990) DEAN'S files an EXPEDITED MOTION TO COMPEL WITNESS

AND GRANT A WAIVER OF FIS 206.01 (c) Rec 856 was to no avail. “We will not permit an agency to add or delete requirements through the mere expedient of interpreting a rule that is clear and unambiguous on its face.” Doe v. N.H. Dep't of Safety, 160 N.H. 474, 477, 999 A.2d 362 (2010) (quotation, brackets, and ellipsis omitted). Here, the rule requires that the school board allow a party or a representative to examine any and all witnesses.” In re Sch. Admin. Unit #44, 162 N.H. 79, 83, 27 A.3d 819, 823 (2011), as modified on denial of reconsideration (June 22, 2011). NHFG Hearing Officer says Appellant can examine any and all witness, so long as I can get the witness to take the stand. How I get them to take the stand, well, that’s my problem. "Because this issue poses a question of constitutional law, we review it de novo." "Law of the land in this article means due process of law." Part I, Article 14, 15 and arguably 35 of the State Constitution, and the United States XIV Amendment, due process requires a hearing before a fair and impartial decision-maker. “It's clear that there were phone conversations in here, yet I [Appellant] have no notes of phone conversations.... Rec 970 L 15-25. The record shows the entire reason for the January 5, 2023 Letter to Appellant was the result of a single page e-mail dated October 4, 2022 from St. Pierre to Mackay. Rec 1340. The record shows there was a single meeting date/time and a series of e-mails after that. The rude and angry

“NO” from, Ryder regarding Appellant’s request to testify is not captured in a dry record, and certainly not the same as it would be on video audio (which Appellant has offered to the Court). Notably, Laura Ryder did not want to inform Appellant she had a right to a hearing. Rec 1287 L13-25. Appellant does not have a “record” of asking Laura Ryder to testify (other than the video Appellant has offered the Court) as the Hearing Officer suggested Appellant ask Laura Ryder on the break [where it does not appear the record continued]. Rec 1047 L3-11. The obvious answer was “NO” as Laura Ryder’s testimony does not appear on the record. Appellant could not learn why the initial decision was made to terminate her, as the five decision makers were not available to her due to the actions of NHFG.

For the forgoing reasons Appellant asks that the decision of the Hearing Officer be set aside and her credentials be reinstated.