This is my quick reply to the ridiculously deficient objection to my sanctions motion filed by Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater. The judge ended up not giving Heater an extension and set the hearing for March 5, 2021.

1. - 1 –
DEFEDAT’S REPLY TO STATE’S OBJECTIO TO AMEDED MOTIO FOR
COURT-ORDERED SACTIOS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Richard Bergeron
107 Cotton Hill Road
Belmont, NH 03220
BELKNAP COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
NEW HAMPSHIRE
State of New Hampshire
vs.
Richard E. Bergeron III
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 211-2019-CR-163
DEFEDAT’S REPLY TO STATE’S
OBJECTIO TO AMEDED MOTIO
FOR COURT-ORDERED SACTIOS
COMES NOW, the Defendant, Pro-Se Richard E. Bergeron III, and hereby enters this reply to the
state’s limited objection to Defendant’s Amended Motion for Court-Ordered Sanctions.
The language of the reply argues two primary issues. The first is the concept of the issue being
moot since Judge O’Neill ruled on a prior sanctions motion. The second issue questions whether or
not the defendant’s latest sanctions motion is really a motion to reconsider in disguise, and should
therefore be determined to be untimely.
As to the first issue, the “Moot” claim hinges on the term “amended” in the title of the
Defendant’s motion. Additionally, Attorney Heater uses this defense in a very loosely-framed
fashion. There are no actual cited legal precedents to support the dismissal of the motion without a
hearing. Nomenclature is a mere technicality in the grand scheme of what the Defendant is asking the
court to review. This is a new motion that the defendant may have named improperly, but the fact
remains it includes very valid, newly acquired evidence such as the Heater appointment letter
(Exhibit 1). This motion also asks for sanctions against an additional party and specifies exactly what
bearing the new evidence has on the sanctions issue.
This is not a matter of asking the judge to reconsider the first motion as written. Bergeron did not
gain access to exhibit 1 until after the hearing on the first sanctions motion was over. This crucial
evidence puts the Livernois resignation in better context, specifically mandates that Grafton County

2. - 2 –
DEFEDAT’S REPLY TO STATE’S OBJECTIO TO AMEDED MOTIO FOR
COURT-ORDERED SACTIOS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Attorney Martha Ann Hornick supervise Deputy County Attorney Heater, and implies that Belknap
County Attorney Andrew Livernois blames Bergeron directly for his own misconduct that required
him to quit the case. The circumstances have changed drastically and this uncontroverted evidence
requires that these four attorneys be held accountable for their collective scheme to deny Bergeron his
First Amendment and due process rights. The new evidence adds pieces of the puzzle that were not
available to the defendant when he compiled the first sanctions motion.
Simply put, the Defendant deserves an honest prosecution by an unbiased prosecutor who is not
doing the bidding of another. The defendant and every defendant like him cannot be expected to
happily accept a prosecutor on his case who is blindly acting in support of the state’s position and
breaking multiple rules of professional conduct in the process. This motion is not at all framed in any
way as a motion to reconsider.
The sanctions requested are specific in this motion and include the removal of Attorney Heater
from the case. This motion is essential to the Defendant’s case. If it is named improperly, it is a
matter of semantics rather than substance.
Pro-se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro-se litigants’ pleadings are
not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers. (See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395
U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233)
In Canon 2, the code of judicial conduct requires a judge to act at all times in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and to avoid conduct
that would make an objective, reasonable observer question the judge's impartiality even if the judge
is not actually biased. Denying a hearing on this motion is akin to allowing these attorneys carte
blanche to continually break rules of professional conduct with their behavior throughout these
proceedings. Such a move would begin the slippery slope leading directly to a request for the judge’s
recusal in this case.
As basic as impartiality is to the ethical standards for judges, however, judges who have before
them pro se litigants whose pleadings or presentations are deficient in some minor way, sometimes
take an unnecessarily strict approach, and, in the name of strict neutrality, compromise fairness,
courtesy, and efficiency, which are also hallmarks of an honorable judicial system required by the
code of judicial conduct. Indiana Advisory Opinion 1-97
(www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/judqual/opinions.html).

3. - 3 –
DEFEDAT’S REPLY TO STATE’S OBJECTIO TO AMEDED MOTIO FOR
COURT-ORDERED SACTIOS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Trial courts possess a discretionary range of control over parties and proceedings that allows
reasonable accommodations to self-represented litigants.' Blair v. Maynard, 324 S.E.2d 391, 396
(West Virginia 1984). Courts have recognized that the 'proper scope of the court's responsibility to
pro se litigants is necessarily an expression of careful exercise of judicial discretion' . . . . Each case
presents a wholly different set of circumstances which require careful attention so as to preserve the
rights of all parties.' Id., quoting ABA Commission on Standards of Judicial Administration,
Standards Relating to Trial Courts, § 2.23 Conduct of Cases Where Litigants Appear Without
Counsel (Commentary) (1976). Accord Austin v. Ellis, 408 A.2d 784, 785 (New Hampshire,1979).
The defendant signed multiple documents attesting to his self-representation. He’s followed all the
proper procedures. Although he is not required to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct for NH
Attorneys, Bergeron has done a much better job of following those rules than all four prosecutors
involved so far. Yet, the judge so far has given the state every request they’ve asked for while only
siding with the defendant on one unopposed motion. Prosecutors clearly broke rules of conduct,
brought shame and embarrassment on their respective County Attorney’s office, and treated the judge
in this case like he would rubber stamp an unfounded and unconstitutional gag order. Now
prosecutors want Judge O’Neill to just continue to look the other way when the defendant illustrates
uncontroverted evidence of their ultimate collective deception and fraud upon the court.
The proper administration of justice requires a full hearing on this motion. Bergeron cannot be
guaranteed a fair trial if prosecutorial misconduct allegations are not properly addressed and fully
examined.
Finally, with respect to the State’s objection serving as a motion for an extension, the Defendant is
not opposed at all to that request. He wants nothing more than to hear the full explanation for the
state’s misconduct here. If it takes longer than the prescribed briefing period that currently exists,
Bergeron is happy to wait a little longer.
The argument that this motion is untimely is simply unsupported by the facts. The prosecution has
done nothing to advance this case since taking it over. There are no scheduling conflicts with any
outstanding matter that make this motion untimely. There is still no indication when the next pre-trial
conference will be scheduled. The probative value of this motion outweighs any procedural weakness
implied by the title of this motion. Neglecting to allow a full hearing on this motion will strengthen
any grounds for appeal the Defendant may have in the event of a conviction in the future.

4. - 4 –
DEFEDAT’S REPLY TO STATE’S OBJECTIO TO AMEDED MOTIO FOR
COURT-ORDERED SACTIOS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Attorney Heater is paid a very high salary by this state to specifically deal with the adversity that
comes with being a county prosecutor. She knew what she was getting into when she signed up for
the job. Even though she is better paid, more educated and more experienced in the legal realm than
Bergeron, she seems to be asking for a whole lot of special treatment from this court. The fact that
Attorney Heater insists on using the last objection if an extension isn’t in the cards is more proof
positive that she has not learned anything by being caught in a scheme of deception and lies. This
climate of conduct is untenable.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests:
1. That a reasonable extension of time for filing a full response to this motion be GRANTED to
the State.
2. That the Defendant should be allowed to file an additional reply to the full objection filing in
accordance with the extension.
3. That Judge O’Neill schedule and hold a full hearing on the sanctions motion.
Respectfully submitted this 11th day of February, 2021: