Between October 2002 and May 2003, Appellant was charged with several offenses, including driving while intoxicated (DWI), third offense, violations of conditions of release, sexual assault on a minor, reckless endangerment, and arson. (The DWI3 was on October 26, 2002, after Ashley Terjelian Meek's family had played games surrounding the entire pregnancy with my daughter, including Mrs. Meek's father leading me to believe my daughter was aborted earlier in the year, then challenging me to a fight that night. The "sexual assault" on a minor was a false confession in November, 2002 with Mrs. Meek's friend without my realizing there was already a conspiracy between the two of them. My evidence to support that is stronger than the evidence they had against me, most of which I could discredit because it was false, but I had ineffective counsel who wouldn't do anything. I discovered the friendship between the two in 2008. The "arson" charge was for my suicide attempt on December 20, 2002, not in May, 2003, after the system was becoming oppressive, and I had already dealt with a lot of distress that entire year. They just brought the "arson" charge as a way to blackmail me to plead guilty, and I had worthless counsel who wouldn't even file a 12-D on it--the charge did not apply to the circumstances. They did this to blackmail me to plead guilty to "sexual assault" on a minor, and they would dismiss the "arson.") On July 13, 2005, the court entered judgment against Appellant and sentenced Appellant. The imposed sentences included a sentence of five to twelve years, all suspended except nineteen months, and probation on the "sexual assault" conviction. (The original deal offered by the state was 5-12 years to serve. I told my ineffective counsel who wouldn't do anything to get rid of charges, including a duplicate manufactured chat that never took place, let alone to get me a better deal--I told him that the only way I would take the deal would be if I could argue for less. I had a judge who already made up her mind about me, counsel who wouldn't do anything, and I would have been wrongfully convicted anyway, because of these circumstances, so I had to try to soften the blow as much as possible. I also knew that I could live down the label, but not when Ms. Place stalked me and falsely accused me in 2005, 2006, and 2008--all while things were going on with Mrs. Meek, my daughter, and me. The State supports that, and the VSC upheld a wrongful conviction/violation that I can show them is in error. I can stick many judges' feet in their mouths, and I can show that the system is built on lies and does not care about truth or justice.)

In December, 2005 Appellant's probation officer filed a complaint and, later, an addendum alleging that Appellant had violated his probation by deliberately having contact with his victim [Ms. Place] at bingo halls on three occassions in December and January. (On December 2, 2005, it was brought to my attention that Ms. Place was in the American Legion, and I removed myself without incident. I left a letter for my PO attached to my sign in sheet on Monday, December 5, 2005. The next time I met my PO, Suzanne Dubuc, she mentioned how Ms. Place had alleged that I gave her the finger--her father had also made it sound like I was driving on December 2, 2005. Dubuc told me not to go back to the Legion, and I told her that I would just go "to the Grange on Tuesday nights." She asked me if I had ever seen Ms. Place there, and I told her that I had never seen Ms. Place there. Ms. Place had "never" been to the Grange prior to this. On December 29, 2005, I was emergency arrested, because Ms. Place and her boyfriend had planted themselves at the Grange on December 27, 2005, tried getting me kicked out, the manager told them she had "never" seen them before and that I was a regular, and they would have to leave, without my awareness this was occurring. They left without saying anything else. On December 28, 2005, they both filed false reports alleging that I touched Ms. Place in the chest at the Grange. Outside the courthouse at the end of January, 2006, Dubuc asked me if I was still going to the Grange, and I told her that I was, but that I was making sure they weren't in there before I entered. On January 31, 2006, after I made certain that they weren't inside, as I had been doing since my arrest, I was approached by the manager, and she told me that Ms. Place's boyfriend, David Ballard Jr., had come in, looked around, asked how much cards were, and left without reserving a seat and that she didn't think he would be back. Within two minutes of my entering and making sure they weren't in there, Ms. Place and Mr. Ballard Jr. attempted to enter the Grange and made a scene. I told Dubuc about this at our next scheduled meeting on February 1, 2006, the very next day. She wrote a distorted addendum/ affidavit regarding that. She said I said that Mr. Ballard asked if I was there, but that's not what I told her, because that's not what I was told and testimony and evidence support me. They erred in violating me, because they violated me for 'not removing myself' on December 27, 2005 when I didn't even know Ms. Place was present. The only thing that would indicate that I had an awareness of her presence would be the false reports from her and Mr. Ballard Jr., but those were not substantiated. The court, and this is where I can stick the VSC's foot in their mouths, said there was no evidence indicating I had an awareness of their presence on January 31, 2006. I couldn't have self-reported that day on February 1, 2006, if that was the case, right? Dubuc was setting me up, and the system really doesn't care about justice or rehabilitating people. This ruined some of my rehabilitation and counseling.) Following a merits hearing, the court found only one violation of the no-contact condition consequently violated Appellant's probation. In August 2007, this Court confirmed the order concluding that Appellant had violated his probation. (That's what they did, but that doesn't make it right or a fact of reality, and I can show them how they're wrong, and they still can't answer my question. If I had no awareness of Ms. Place's presence on January 31, 2006, then how could I have self-reported it to Dubuc on February 1, 2006 for her to write a distorted addendum/affidavit about? When her false reports are unsubstantiated, and everything else indicates I had no awareness of her presence on December 27, 2005, how can the Court uphold a no-contact condition based on my not removing myself when I was not aware of her presence and she intentionally planted herself there? To this day, Ms. Place has never been back to the Grange, even when I was banned from all bingos for six months by Dubuc. Like I said, I can stick all these peoples' feet in their mouths, and if they'll do it to me when I was doing better in my life than ever, then they'll do it to you, your friends, and your family once they get the chance where they can lie.)

On July 31, 2007, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw from his plea agreement. The district court denied the motion on the ground that it was untimely filed. On appeal, this court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion to withdraw since Appellant was on probation on all the underlying charges at the time he filed the motion to withdraw. (I'm not on probation now, so should I have filed a motion to withdraw again instead of a motion to expunge then? That's just semantics and legal games that they play to disenfrachise and wear down people. That's not justice.)

On November 10, 2008, Appellant filed a pro se "MOTION TO EXPUNGE 7/13/05 PLEA DEAL"... In the motion, Appellant made a number of representations concerning a conspiracy to inflict emotional distress on him and eliminate him from his daughter's life, that he was falsely accused of violating his probation, and his run for a senate seat in Chittenden county, as well as several other allegations. (They don't dispute the conspiracy, because they can't, and they can't dispute the violation. I said that my run for state senator was to expose this, so how they make that an "allegation" is retarded. These people really are retarded. Are these the people you want in charge of the legal system and truth and justice?) Appellant also contended that he "had ineffective counsel when [he] took the plea deal on July 13, 2005." (Public defenders had been changed on me 3 times, and I was on my fourth public defender, after losing one who was working for me, and I have shown how the fourth was ineffective, but I had no chance to change counsel at that point in the game either.)

On November 25, 2008, the court issued an entry order denying Appellant's motion to expunge. The order stated: No legal basis for expungement of prior convictions is raised. Mr. Forney has the right to seek a pardon through the governor's office if he wishes. (Douglas is endorsed by Corrections Corporation of America, which is why he's always pushing for civil commitment--earn his endorser more money, and he doesn't think anybody in Vermont has ever been wrongfully convicted. It was his retarded appointed judge, Brian Grearson, who thought Rooney looked like a nice guy and paid no attention to reports against him, while he was also going out of his way to wrongfully violate me. Douglas also appointed Geoffrey Crawford who was rude to me during Family Court, allowed Mrs. Meek to lie, interrupted me, and pushed me to where I finally stood up, pointed at Mr. Meek and said, "He's molesting my daughter." All Crawford told me was, "Don't point, it's rude." Do you think it would be worth my time to ask the governor's office under these conditions?)

The entry order indicated that copies of the order were sent to the parties on December 26. On December 29, 2008, Appellant filed notice that he was appealing the denial of motion to expunge. On January 6, 2009, the court confirmed that Appellant received a copy of the entry order only three days before he filed his notice of appeal. (They really suck at sending rulings on time in order for people to appeal them, and this has resulted in wasting more of your tax dollars, but this is just part of the game of this dysfunctional system with all these dysfunctional officials.)

BASED ON THE RECORD BEFORE IT, THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DENIED THE MOTION TO EXPUNGE. (When I filed the motion to expunge, not all of the documents I had for the appeal were in district court, but there was still enough to support my case. If I have to just file everything in district court, then I could just put my printed case and brief in district court and appeal it when they deny it again so that it is on record that way. It's your tax dollars, and I don't mind wasting them while this system is full of corrupt psychopaths: no empathy, no remorse, no conscience, lies, and manipulates.)

On appeal, Appellant does not argue that the court erred in denying his motion to expunge. (I did argue that, and if it's not good enough, then I'll do it again with another argument just like the one posed. It was a false confession that got out of control when there was already a conspiracy behind it between Mrs. Meek and Ms. Place.) Instead, Appellant repeats some of the factual allegations contained in his motion to expunge, including that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that there was a conspiracy to inflict emotional distress upon him (emphasis added) (These people are retards. An "allegation" is not something factually based, and this is not the first time idiots in the system have misused the word. So these morons handling prosecution don't care if a person gets ineffective counsel, nor that he was caused distress, and they certainly don't care about it, and certainly can't deliver it when they don't know the difference between an allegation and a fact. Ms. Place's false reports were unsubstantiated allegations that the state pushed as fact just to get a wrongful violation on me. It's a fact of reality and law that the reports are false. The law however said that I was aware of her presence, and that is now a fact of law, but it is not a fact of reality and is not supported by anything other than unsubstantiated lies.) Appellant also makes numerous representations concerning the probation violation proceedings... and other circumstances of his case. (All stuff based on things that nobody, not even the VSC, can explain away or even answer questions regarding.) In addition, Appellant alleges that when he accepted the plea agreement, he understood that he "would only be on the ten year registry," and that he "had no chance other than to try to salvage my life with the plea." (It is a fact that I was only supposed to be on the ten year registry and that's what I understood when taking the deal, but they changed it to lifetime, because they are a bunch of lying, deal-breaking psychopaths. The plea was the only way I could salvage my life, because I had ineffective counsel, and the court was ready to hang me--I was not being given the presumption of innocence in anything, ever, and the deal also did not guarantee me probation. I had to change the judge's mind, and if I fought it, then my counsel wouldn't have done anything, the judge would have gotten angry, and I wouldn't have been able to continue with my college and counseling, because I would have gone to jail. I was blackmailed into the deal, but I also knew I could live it down, until Ms. Place started stalking me and falsely accusing me, and the conspiracy between her and Mrs. Meek revealed itself. The system wants to refer to Ms. Place as a "victim" of mine, but she lacks all of the mental and emotional characteristics as being a "victim" of mine. I know what it feels like to be raped/sexually assaulted from when I was 20, and I can definitely say that I have felt as though I've been getting raped by the system since the end of 2005. I am a victim of the system, and I am putting up a restraining order regarding that as well. Whether they want to get it or not, doesn't matter to me, because I will react to them regarding anything to do with the "sex offender" registry, Ms. Place, or Mrs. Meek, as a threat to my life, liberty, and freedom, and I will act accordingly.)

Given the record before it, the district court's denial of the motion to expunge was correct. The court properly found that Appellant offered no legal basis to order expungement of his 2005 convictions... (once movant satisfactorily completed terms of deferred sentence for domestic assault, she was entitled to expungement of criminal record under 13 V.S.A. statute 7041 (b) without requiring two-year "good behavior" period applicable to requests to seal juvenile records). Though not addressed by the court, Appellant also failed to demonstrate any extreme or unusual circumstances warranting expungment. Thus, the district court did not err in denying the motion to expunge. (The fact of reality, that there was/is a conspiracy between Mrs. Meek and Ms. Place to eliminate me from my daughter's life and try to cause me distress so that I would be discredited and couldn't do anything for her and can't act as a fully functioning father, because of being internally exiled as a result of everything I've had to deal with, is not extreme or unusual circumstances? These people are psychopaths and really don't care who they hurt, including continuing with things like trying to stop me from getting rid of my record so that I can be a fully functioning father to my daughter, which is just harmful to her because it leaves her in a bad environment. Maybe that's because Mrs. Meek's "parents have connections in the system" through a fruity little pedophile cult? There are people like (David) Ortloff, prosecutor or lawmaker in New York who specifically targeted sex offenses, but yet broke the same law. Or Mark Foley who solicited paiges; Larry Craig, and I'm sure there are others I'm just not thinking of.)

In State v. Motchnik, this Court recognized the court's inherrent power to order expunction of arrest records, and directed that the power must be exercised in unusual or extreme cases only upon a showing that the harm to the defendant outweighs the State's interest in maintaining the records. (They don't see any of what's happened to me and my daughter thusfar as being harmful to me. They don't find it exteme or unusual that there are numerous different versions from Ms. Place regarding 2002, and that she stalks me and falsely accuses me around things to do with my daughter. Are they insane?)

Appellant has never contended that the "narrow power" to expunge recognized in Motchnik... authorizes expungement of a plea deal accepted by the district court... (It goes on a little more, but I covered the main points from the state, all of which are clearly incompetent. I have a right to effective counsel. These are extreme and unusual circumstances that have just harmed me continuously, while allowing my daughter to continue to be harmed, and they are either stupid and incompetent, or corrupt and psychopathic, if they are unable to understand and see that, or if they think this is okay. This was done by Pamela Hall Johnson, Deputy State's Attorney, under that corrupt little twit, Donovan)