STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT – BENNINGTON UNIT
CIVIL DIVISION

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF JUSTIN-AMES GAMACHE
RE: Protection Against Civil Stalking Allegations by Lauren Ronan
Case No. 22-ST-00891

I. INTRODUCTION

This memorandum is submitted on behalf of Justin-Ames Gamache to affirm his legal protection under Vermont law following the denial of a civil stalking protective order sought by Lauren Ronan. The Vermont Superior Court, Bennington Unit, presided over by Judge John W. Valente, determined on September 7, 2022, that Plaintiff’s petition did not meet the statutory requirements under 12 V.S.A. § 5131 and § 5133. As such, Mr. Gamache is entitled to rely on this decision as a legal shield against speculative or unsupported future claims arising from the same set of facts.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Ms. Ronan, a law enforcement officer, alleged that Mr. Gamache’s written communications, consisting of emails, a certified letter, and two phone calls over a nine-year period, constituted stalking. Despite the volume and tone of communications, no threats of physical violence were ever made by Mr. Gamache, and no in-person contact occurred. The Court found that Mr. Gamache’s conduct, although perceived by the Plaintiff as distressing, was largely constitutionally protected speech and did not meet the definition of stalking under Vermont law.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Under 12 V.S.A. § 5131(6), stalking is defined as purposeful conduct consisting of two or more acts directed at a specific person that the actor knows or should know would cause a reasonable person to:

(A) fear for their safety or the safety of a family member; or
(B) suffer substantial emotional distress.
Further, a "[c]ourse of conduct" requires acts such as following, monitoring, surveilling, or threatening — none of which include constitutionally protected expression.

IV. COURT’S FINDINGS IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT

Judge Valente made the following determinations:

No Threats of Physical Harm: There was no evidence of a communicated intent to inflict bodily injury, as required by law (Hinkson v. Stevens, 2020 VT 69, ¶ 45).
No Monitoring, Following, or Surveillance: The acts cited by Plaintiff — emails and phone calls — were not shown to involve any tracking, surveillance, or attempts at physical presence.
Protected Speech: Defendant’s communications, while perhaps unwelcome, were non-violent expressions of opinion or legal intention (e.g., discussing civil litigation), falling within the protections of the First Amendment.
Lack of In-Person Contact: The Court distinguished this case from others involving protective orders by emphasizing the absence of in-person confrontations, escalation to violence, or direct intimidation.
V. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Based on the Court’s ruling, any future attempts by Ms. Ronan to seek protective relief or allege stalking on the basis of these same events would likely constitute:

Res judicata (claim preclusion) due to final judgment.
An infringement on Mr. Gamache’s constitutional rights, including free speech and access to the courts.
A potential abuse of process if further legal actions are pursued without new, legally sufficient evidence.
VI. CONCLUSION

Mr. Justin-Ames Gamache is legally protected under Vermont law and the Constitution from unsupported or speculative claims of civil stalking that lack the elements of threats, surveillance, or unlawful conduct. The decision issued in Ronan v. Gamache, Case No. 22-ST-00891, should be upheld as dispositive in shielding him from further legal harassment on these grounds.

Respectfully submitted,