Filed: https://archive.org/details/1127-10-13-bncr-memorandum-of-law

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Petitioner Justin-Ames Gamache respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in support of his continuing efforts to vindicate his constitutional rights, expunge his sole misdemeanor conviction, and halt the unlawful dissemination of his personal information. This matter arises from an isolated nonviolent misdemeanor conviction under 13 V.S.A. § 3002, adjudicated in 2013 in Bennington Superior Court, Criminal Division, Docket No. 1127-10-13 Bncr. Petitioner was never incarcerated and completed all conditions of a fully suspended sentence without violation. Since then, Petitioner has remained law-abiding, civically engaged, and committed to peaceful protest in opposition to perceived government overreach.

Petitioner has exercised his rights under 13 V.S.A. §§ 7602, 7606, and 7607 to seek full expungement of the record, citing compliance with all statutory conditions, the absence of subsequent convictions, and the passage of the requisite period under Vermont law. This request is further grounded in the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a), the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Chapter I, Articles 4, 7, and 10 of the Vermont Constitution. In addition, Petitioner alleges procedural irregularities and constitutional violations by members of the judiciary and prosecution that have impeded his ability to obtain timely and impartial review of his claims.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND LEGAL HISTORY

In 2013, Mr. Gamache pleaded to a misdemeanor charge of impersonating an officer in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 3002. The conduct was nonviolent, no physical harm occurred, and the court imposed no incarceration. The sentence was fully suspended under Vermont law. Pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7602(a)(1)(A), misdemeanor convictions may be expunged after five years if the petitioner has not been convicted of a subsequent crime and demonstrates rehabilitation. Petitioner now seeks expungement under § 7606(b), which mandates that the court "shall grant the petition" upon satisfaction of statutory criteria. See also State v. Putnam, 2020 VT 94, ¶¶ 18–19 (clarifying that judicial discretion under § 7606 must yield when all statutory conditions are met).

No other convictions or criminal charges have occurred since 2013. Despite this, Petitioner has faced a persistent pattern of reputational harm, institutional stigma, and unlawful disclosures of his sealed and personal information, in contravention of multiple legal protections. No admissible evidence has ever been presented to substantiate any further criminal conduct. Assertions circulating via the internet, media, or personal rumor are not legally admissible and are explicitly excluded under the Vermont Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 802 (prohibiting irrelevant or hearsay-based assertions).

III. VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS AND PRIVACY LAWS

Petitioner asserts that the continued dissemination of prejudicial and non-judicial information violates both federal and state constitutional guarantees. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution guarantee all persons the right to due process of law. The U.S. Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), held that government actions affecting reputation or property interests require fundamental fairness and procedural safeguards.

Petitioner further invokes his rights under the Privacy Act of 1974, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a, particularly subsection (b), which prohibits the disclosure of any record contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person or to another agency without the written consent of the individual, subject to narrowly defined exceptions. The Federal Court of Appeals in Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), affirmed that unauthorized dissemination of private information constitutes a redressable injury under the Act.

At the state level, Vermont’s Public Records Act, 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(7), exempts from public disclosure all personal documents that are not clearly within the public interest. Dissemination of sealed records or non-adjudicated allegations to third parties—such as employers, licensing boards, or law enforcement entities—constitutes unlawful conduct under both § 317 and 13 V.S.A. § 7607(d), which holds that upon expungement, "the person shall be treated in all respects as if he or she had never been convicted."

IV. FIRST AND FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF PEACEFUL PROTEST AND AUTONOMY

For over a decade, Petitioner has engaged in a lawful, peaceful protest against systemic injustice, grounded in the right to free expression and association under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 13 of the Vermont Constitution. The Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), upheld the right of individuals to maintain anonymity and refrain from compelled disclosure of private affiliations or identity information in the context of protest or dissent.

Petitioner’s refusal to register his personal address with certain state agencies, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, is a form of constitutionally protected expression, not a crime. The Fourth Amendment and its Vermont counterpart (Chapter I, Article 11) shield individuals from governmental intrusion into private matters unless supported by probable cause and judicial authorization. In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to privacy in the sanctuary of one’s home and data, free from unwarranted governmental inspection.

V. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, JUDICIAL BIAS, AND MISCONDUCT

Petitioner has submitted judicial filings alleging conflicts of interest and potential misconduct by judicial officers and prosecutors, including but not limited to former Bennington County State’s Attorney Alexander N. Burke and sitting judicial officers. Judicial conduct in Vermont is governed by the Vermont Code of Judicial Conduct, which incorporates Rule 2.11 requiring disqualification where a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The U.S. Supreme Court in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), found that judicial recusal is required where the appearance of bias threatens due process.

Prosecutors are similarly bound by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), to disclose exculpatory evidence, and any violation thereof invalidates a criminal proceeding. Ethical violations may also constitute grounds for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 (new trial based on newly discovered evidence or legal error).

VI. STATUTORY ENTITLEMENT TO EXPUNGEMENT AND RELIEF

Mr. Gamache meets all conditions under 13 V.S.A. §§ 7602, 7606, and 7607 to have his record fully expunged. The Vermont Supreme Court has repeatedly held that expungement statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of rehabilitation and second chances. See In re A.M., 2015 VT 109. Section 7607 further affirms that following an expungement, all court and criminal justice agencies must seal and refrain from disclosing the records, and the individual "shall be treated in all respects as if the offense had never occurred."

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act), Vermont courts have inherent authority to issue orders necessary to protect jurisdiction and enforce justice. Rule 60(b) of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure permits relief from prior judgments in cases of mistake, fraud, or newly discovered evidence. Continued delay or denial of relief in Mr. Gamache’s case would constitute an abuse of discretion, arbitrary state action, and potential constitutional tort.

VII. CONCLUSION

Petitioner has satisfied every legal requirement to obtain expungement and is further entitled to redress for constitutional and statutory violations relating to privacy, due process, and free expression. He has demonstrated rehabilitation, continued lawful conduct, and civic integrity over the span of more than ten years. There exists no legal basis for continued defamation, data dissemination, or reputational harm stemming from a decade-old, nonviolent, suspended misdemeanor.

Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests the following relief:

That this Court issue an Order granting full expungement under 13 V.S.A. §§ 7602–7607;
That all public and private entities be directed to cease dissemination of expunged or protected data pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a and 1 V.S.A. § 317;
That any further references to non-adjudicated allegations be deemed legally irrelevant and inadmissible in any proceeding;
That this Court provide such other and further relief as justice and equity require.
Respectfully submitted,
Justin-Ames Gamache, Pro Se