IN THE VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
[Judicial Unit] Division
Docket No. 1127-10-13 Bncr
In Re: Petition of Justin-Ames Gamache
For Expungement, Declaratory Relief, and Constitutional Redress
SEPARATE MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Concerning Statewide Misclassification and Systemic Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Against Judges, Prosecutors, Law Enforcement, and Executive Legal Officers in the State of Vermont
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, Justin-Ames Gamache, submits this separate memorandum of law to assert that the misclassification, ongoing use, and dissemination of his adjudicated 2013 misdemeanor offense under 13 V.S.A. § 3002 (Impersonation of an Officer) by members of the Vermont judiciary, executive branch attorneys, and law enforcement constitutes a systematic violation of federal and state law. This document asserts that the Vermont Superior Court, Vermont Supreme Court, all Vermont State’s Attorneys, the Vermont Attorney General, and officers of the Vermont State Police have collectively engaged—by action or inaction—in unlawful conduct that infringes upon the Petitioner’s constitutional, statutory, and privacy rights.
Petitioner seeks immediate expungement under 13 V.S.A. §§ 7602–7607, relief under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, protection under the Vermont Constitution, and enforcement of civil liberties under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law).
II. STATUTORY MISCLASSIFICATION AND PERSISTENT LEGAL ERROR
The charge underlying this entire matter is a nonviolent misdemeanor conviction under 13 V.S.A. § 3002, punishable by not more than six months in prison or a $500 fine. Vermont law classifies this as a misdemeanor, as defined by 13 V.S.A. § 1:
“Offenses which are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than two years shall be deemed misdemeanors.”
Accordingly, any characterization of Mr. Gamache’s conviction as a predicate offense, felony, or bar to relief constitutes a misapplication of statutory law and a denial of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Such a misclassification has had far-reaching consequences, including denial of expungement rights, unlawful dissemination of sealed or sensitive information, and reputational injury without legal justification.
Additionally, continued reliance on stale or resolved offenses violates the Vermont Rules of Evidence (V.R.E.), particularly:
V.R.E. 403 – Excludes evidence that creates unfair prejudice or misleads the factfinder.
V.R.E. 608(b) – Prohibits use of prior misconduct not resulting in a conviction.
V.R.E. 802 – Bars hearsay not subject to cross-examination.
III. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS
A. Judicial Misconduct and Conflict of Interest
Petitioner identifies all Judges of the Vermont Superior Court and Vermont Supreme Court, including Judges Cortland Corsones and John W. Valente, for presiding over matters where conflicts of interest or violations of Canon 2 and Rule 2.11 of the Vermont Code of Judicial Conduct occurred.
In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court held that even the appearance of partiality violates the Due Process Clause. Judicial impartiality is a foundational principle under both Vermont Constitution Chapter I, Article 4 and Article 10, which guarantee justice free from bias and favoritism.
B. Prosecutorial Misconduct
The actions of all Vermont State’s Attorneys, including former Bennington County prosecutor Alexander N. Burke, raise serious concerns under:
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) – Prosecutors must disclose exculpatory material.
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) – Prosecutors must disclose credibility issues of state witnesses.
Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8 – Special responsibilities of a prosecutor.
Rule 8.4(c) and (d) – Misconduct involving dishonesty or conduct prejudicial to justice.
IV. VIOLATION OF PRIVACY RIGHTS AND UNAUTHORIZED DATA DISCLOSURE
The release or continued use of Mr. Gamache’s personal information without consent violates federal privacy law under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a):
“No agency shall disclose any record... by any means of communication... except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains.”
This protection is reinforced by Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), which held that violation of the Privacy Act gives rise to actionable harm. State actors cannot lawfully disseminate or make adverse decisions based on sealed or sensitive personal data without violating both 5 U.S.C. § 552a and 13 V.S.A. § 7607(d), which requires that expunged convictions “shall be treated in all respects as if they had never occurred.”
Further protection is offered by 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(7) under the Vermont Public Records Act, which exempts from public disclosure records that “would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
V. POLICE MISCONDUCT AND COLOR OF LAW ABUSE
The conduct of Vermont State Police Officers, including Thomas Mozzer and Lauren Ronan, who engaged in investigatory tactics contributing to reputational harm, may give rise to liability under:
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Civil liability for deprivation of constitutional rights by any state actor.
18 U.S.C. § 241 – Criminal conspiracy to deprive civil rights.
18 U.S.C. § 242 – Criminal penalty for deprivation of rights under color of law.
Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution – Protection against unlawful searches and seizures.
In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), the Court reaffirmed the right to be free from arbitrary intrusion into one's private life. Likewise, in Zerilli v. Smith, 656 F.2d 705 (D.C. Cir. 1981), the Court held that the public’s right to information must yield to individual privacy, particularly in the absence of compelling state interest.
VI. FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION AND CHILLING EFFECTS
Mr. Gamache’s longstanding and peaceful protest—refusing to provide his address to state agencies and removing his data from commercial databases—are constitutionally protected under:
U.S. Const. amend. I – Right to free speech, association, and protest.
Vt. Const. Chapter I, Article 13 – Right to freedom of assembly and protest.
NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) – Individuals cannot be compelled to reveal personal information without a legitimate, narrowly tailored state interest.
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) – The government may not retaliate against protected expression.
VII. ENTITLEMENT TO EXPUNGEMENT AND COMPLETE RELIEF
Mr. Gamache has met all legal criteria under 13 V.S.A. §§ 7602, 7606, and 7607. The Vermont Supreme Court in In re A.M., 2015 VT 109, emphasized the rehabilitative purpose of expungement and held that expunged individuals are entitled to “treatment in all respects as though the offense never occurred.”
Failure to grant relief at this stage may constitute an abuse of discretion, reversible under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 and enforceable through Rule 60(b) of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure for newly discovered evidence, mistake, or legal error.
VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED
Petitioner respectfully requests the following:
Immediate expungement and sealing of all records pursuant to 13 V.S.A. §§ 7606 and 7607;
Injunction against any Vermont judicial, prosecutorial, or law enforcement agency from disclosing, referencing, or using the expunged record;
Declaratory judgment recognizing systemic due process and privacy violations;
Referral to appropriate state and federal oversight bodies for review of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct;
Any further relief this Court deems just and equitable, including costs, damages, or referral for criminal investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 242.
Respectfully submitted,
Justin-Ames Gamache, Pro Se Petitioner
[Date]
[Address – “Filed under seal” if needed]
[Contact – Optional]