MOTION TO BAR FURTHER ACTIONS AGAINST JUSTIN-AMES GAMACHE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY GROUNDS

NOW COMES the Respondent, Justin-Ames Gamache, pro se or through counsel, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court to enter an order barring any further civil or administrative action initiated by the State of Vermont or its agents based on the same or substantially similar conduct previously adjudicated. This motion is grounded in the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and the constitutional protections afforded by the United States and Vermont Constitutions, and in support thereof states as follows:

 
1. Prior Adjudication and Legal Finality

The matter of Lauren Ronan v. Justin-Ames Gamache, Case No. 22-ST-00891, was fully adjudicated by the Vermont Superior Court, Civil Division (Hon. Judge John W. Valente), on September 7, 2022, resulting in the denial of the Plaintiff’s civil stalking petition. The Court found that:

“There is no evidence that Defendant communicated an intent to inflict harm on Plaintiff, her family or her property.”
– Findings and Order, 22-ST-00891, p. 4

Thus, no unlawful conduct was found and the conduct in question was determined to be constitutionally protected under 12 V.S.A. § 5131(1)(B) and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 
2. Constitutional Barriers to Further Action

The re-litigation of issues already resolved in Mr. Gamache’s favor would violate his rights under:

U.S. CONST. amend. I – Freedom of speech and peaceful protest;
U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 – Due process and equal protection;
Vermont Constitution, Chapter I, Article 4 – Protection from abusive prosecutions and double jeopardy in spirit and purpose.
Additionally, further attempts to initiate legal actions on the same basis could constitute a form of retaliatory enforcement, subject to constitutional scrutiny under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

 
3. Government Misconduct and Qualified Immunity Framework

If state actors or agencies in Vermont were to initiate future actions against Mr. Gamache, he reserves the right to pursue joint federal and state claims, including but not limited to:

Violation of Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) – Unauthorized disclosure of personal records;
First and Fourteenth Amendment claims under § 1983, for harassment or retaliation;
State tort claims, including abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.
Given that Vermont courts continue to recognize qualified immunity, any state actor would need to overcome the burden of showing that their actions did not violate a “clearly established constitutional right,” and that no reasonable public official would have known their conduct was unlawful. (See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)).

Because the September 2022 ruling clearly affirms that no stalking or threats occurred, no reasonable official could now claim that further actions are justified.

 
4. Requested Relief

In light of the above, Justin-Ames Gamache respectfully requests that this Court:

Bar the State of Vermont, its agencies, and affiliated officers from initiating any further civil or administrative action against Mr. Gamache based on the same or substantially related facts previously litigated;
Enter a declaratory finding that Mr. Gamache’s communications and protest activities are protected under state and federal law;
Retain jurisdiction to address future retaliatory actions or violations of Mr. Gamache’s rights under § 1983 or other applicable statutes;
Grant such further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.