March 19, 2025

To Whom It May Concern:

RE: Unauthorized Disclosure of Court Document EO-22-067 and Legal Clarification Regarding Non-Predicate Misdemeanor Conviction

I am writing to formally object to the unauthorized sharing, publication, and use of Vermont court document EO-22-067, which references civil proceedings unrelated to any criminal conviction. Under Vermont law, such documents may not be distributed or publicly disclosed without the express written consent of the named appellant, especially where the document holds no legal precedential value. As expressly noted in the Vermont Supreme Court’s disclaimer on the EO-22-067 entry order: “Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.”

Additionally, there is no statute in Vermont law authorizing the courts or third parties to retain, publish, or republish civil court documents such as EO-22-067 beyond a one-year period, particularly when the record no longer serves a legal or public purpose. No legislation exists in Vermont supporting perpetual court record publication, and doing so without consent is inconsistent with the state’s expungement and privacy protections under 13 V.S.A. §§ 7602, 7606, and 7607.

Further, I would like to reiterate and legally clarify that the single misdemeanor offense for which I sought expungement — Impersonation of an Officer under 13 V.S.A. § 3002 — is not a predicate offense under Vermont law. Per 13 V.S.A. § 7601(3), the only offenses explicitly listed as predicate offenses are:

Operating a vehicle under the influence (23 V.S.A. § 1201),
Domestic Assault (13 V.S.A. § 1042), and
Stalking (13 V.S.A. § 1062).
My conviction does not meet any of those criteria, and any previous court finding treating it as a predicate offense was made in error. Likewise, under 13 V.S.A. § 7601(4), qualifying misdemeanors eligible for expungement exclude only specific categories such as sexual exploitation or protection order violations—again, none of which apply to my case.

Additionally, impersonating an officer is also not considered a predicate or disqualifying offense under federal law, and in Vermont, it is not classified as a listed violent crime under 13 V.S.A. § 5301(7).

This misdemeanor did not involve violence, face-to-face conflict, harm to any individual, or endangerment of public safety. In fact, no person was harmed, no weapon was involved, and no physical contact occurred. It was a low-level, nonviolent offense, and the sentence was fully suspended with no jail time served.

Per 13 V.S.A. § 7602, I fully meet all statutory requirements for expungement:

Over ten (10) years have passed since completion of my sentence.
I have remained conviction-free.
All restitution was paid in full; and
Expungement clearly serves the interests of justice.
As such, I will soon be submitting a  formal Petition for Expungement under 13 V.S.A. §§ 7602 and 7606, which is supported by my sworn affidavit and additional court filings. The Vermont Supreme Court, in Case No. 23-AP-019, recognized that a legal misclassification could justify reconsideration of expungement eligibility — a position I have now lawfully invoked.

For these reasons, I respectfully demand that:

All unauthorized publication, sharing, or referencing of EO-22-067 cease immediately.
All parties in possession of said document be informed of the legal protections that apply.
No further unauthorized disclosures be made without my written consent, as required by law.
Continued dissemination of this document not only lacks statutory basis but perpetuates a form of reputational harm and social persecution that contravenes Vermont’s restorative justice values.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I don’t need a response from you and I am not a working member of the public. I will continue to strive privacy and do not give or provide my consent for future contact by any authorities. ALL RIGHTS RESPECTFULLY RESERVED.

Respectfully, 
Justin-Ames Gamache