Baldi v. John T. Broderick, Jr., et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
John A. Baldi
v. Civil No. 04-cv-466-PB
John T. Broderick, Jr., et al.
O R D E R
Four former defendants in this action, all state court
judges (hereafter “State Court Judges”), move to quash the
subpoenas served upon them by counterclaim defendant John A.
Baldi (hereafter “Baldi”). In connection with the motion, Judge
Barbadoro ordered Baldi to file a statement of the testimony he
expects to elicit from each. Document no. 86. The matter has
been referred to me by Judge Barbadoro.
Preliminary Matter
As a preliminary matter I consider Baldi’s objection to
resolution of the matter by me. Document no. 88. In prior
orders, in other cases, I have informed Baldi that the
appropriate vehicle to seek the recusal of a federal judge is by
motion. See United States v. Devin, 918 F.2d 280, 294 n.11 (1st
Cir. 1990); In re United States, 158 F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 1998).
Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 91 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 7

2
In certain circumstances it can be raised by affidavit. 28
U.S.C. § 144. He is well aware of the proper procedure and, in
fact, earlier in this case he used it to seek Judge Barbadoro’s
recusal. Document no. 5. Despite the lack of any motion for
recusal I will consider his objections.
Baldi asserts: (1) that I am not neutral; (2) that I have
close friendship with parties to be deposed; (3) that I hold
prejudice against Baldi; (4) that Baldi has filed complaints
against me; (5) that I have a history of altering transcripts;
(6) that I have failed in my duty to enforce criminal violations
against perpetrators who are either state officials or friends of
mine; (7) that in this case I have violated 18 U.S.C. § 4,
Misprision of Felony when I denied Baldi’s “Motion For A Hearing
On The Issuance of Arrest Warrants”; (8) that I have allowed
defendants to continue their violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and
242; and (9) that I have shown my intent to violate 18 U.S.C.
§ 2384, seditious conspiracy.
His complaints numbered (1), (2), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9)
are very similar or identical to complaints previously filed
against me by Baldi with the Judicial Council of the First
Circuit. They were dismissed as baseless. He may not relitigate
Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 91 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 7

3
them and they remain baseless. The fact that Baldi filed the
complaint has not influenced me in making decisions in his cases
and it will not do so in the future. Frivolous and/or baseless
complaints by misguided pro se litigants against judges do not,
and should not, be a basis for recusal. I accept that
disgruntled pro se litigants complain against judges who rule
against them. Furthermore, I have no personal bias or prejudice
against Mr. Baldi and his complaints against me will not be held
against him.
It is always tempting for a judge to recuse himself in cases
instituted by “frequent filers” with a history of asserting
unfounded claims or who make the administration of the cases
difficult. However, a judge has a duty to participate or sit on
a case when it is not appropriate to recuse. See Laird v.
Taturn, 409 U.S. 824, 837 (1972) (citations omitted). No
reasonable person could question my impartiality in this case and
I decline to recuse myself.
Background
The subpoenaed justices were originally defendants. Their
motion to dismiss was granted and they are no longer parties to
the case. In fact, all of Baldi’s claims in this suit have been
Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 91 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 7

4
dismissed.
Judge Barbadoro has reviewed the history of Mr. Baldi’s many
suits in his “Memorandum and Order” of September 21, 2005
dismissing all of Mr. Baldi’s claims. Document no. 71. The only
claims remaining in this suit are the counterclaims of Gail and
Ronald Brown. The counterclaims allege:
1. Count I - Abuse of Process;
2. Count II - Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress;
3. Count III - Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress;
and
4. Count IV - Harassment and Invasion of Privacy.
Since the suits against the State Court Judges have been
dismissed any discovery from them must be relevant to a claim or
defense relating to the counterclaims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Baldi does not claim that the testimony sought relates to
plaintiffs’ claims but rather to his defense of illegality.
Further, as pointed out above Judge Barbadoro has ordered
Baldi to provide a statement of the evidence he expects to obtain
from each of the deponents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and 26(c) permit
the court to quash a subpoena and order that discovery not be had
Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 91 Filed 04/27/06 Page 4 of 7

5
in a deposition where justice requires that a person be protected
from annoyance . . . oppression or undue burden. Baldi states:
in response to that aspect of the order the plaintiff states
the following:
a. Plaintiff does not seek intervention into the
mental processes of any of the judges.
b. Plaintiff does seeks answers as to the meaning of
state statutes, articles of the state
constitution, whether an oath of office was taken
that included in part to uphold the constitution
and laws of the United States, whether they are
bound by the supremacy clause of the United States
Constitution and if not, to identify the authority
that allows them to breach that “Article” and the
privileges and immunities granted pursuant to the
entire document.
c. The questions will also be related to their legal
background, what they knew, when they knew it,
what action they took, if any, all designed to
show that had a complete knowledge of both federal
and state law, they wilfully and deliberately
breached federal law, did not follow the plain
language of statutes enacted by the state
legislature and generally used their positions
contrary to the law if that is what they felt like
doing. This will be done and must be allowed to
be done, in order to prove the affirmative defense
of illegality to the Browns counterclaims. It
must also be done for the plaintiff’s suit against
the United States pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365
(See attachment. The Browns, Town of Epsom, State
of N.H. have all also been notified. Please also
be aware that by statute the venue for suits
against the United States is the district court
within the district where the plaintiff resides,
Boston).
Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 91 Filed 04/27/06 Page 5 of 7

6
In paragraph a. Baldi acknowledges that he is not permitted to
inquire into the mental processes of any of the judges. Baldi is
correct. The decision-making or mental processes of judges is
not subject to discovery. That is true under federal law. See
United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941); Fayerweather
v. Ritch, 195 U.S. 276, 306-7 (1904). It is equally true under
New Hampshire law. See State ex rel. Childs v. Hayward, 109 N.H.
228, 230 (1968); Merriam v. Town of Salem, 112 N.H. 267, 268
(1972).
Having acknowledged that he cannot inquire into the mental
processes of the State Court Judges, he then describes in
paragraph b. and the first part of c. areas of inquiry which are,
in different words, an inquiry into mental processes or
interpreted another way a request for advisory opinions. An
inquiry into how judges interpreted statutes or articles of the
state or federal constitution in deciding Baldi’s cases clearly
involve an inquiry into their mental processes. What legal
understanding they had or interpretations of law they made are
what he wishes to use to show they “wilfully and deliberately
breached federal law, did not follow the plain language of
statutes . . . and used their positions contrary to the law if
Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 91 Filed 04/27/06 Page 6 of 7

7
that is what they felt like doing”. That can only be determined
from their written or oral decisions or it will require an
inquiry into their thinking. The latter is not permitted. No
deposition is needed to determine it in the former instance.
He also cannot use these justices to prove his “illegality”
defense by “extracting” their opinions of the law, even assuming
he has such a viable defense. Baldi is simply not entitled to
advisory opinions from New Hampshire Supreme Court or Superior
Court Judges.
Baldi has failed to show any legitimate basis for these
depositions. The subpoenas are quashed, the motion (document no.
86) is granted and Chief Justice Broderick, Justice Dalianis,
Justice McGuire and Justice Fitzgerald are granted a protective
order directing that the “discovery” sought not be had.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
James R. Muirhead
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: April 27, 2006
cc: John A. Baldi, pro se
Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.
John A. Curran, Esq.
Daniel J. Mullen, Esq.
Charles A. Russell, Esq.
Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 91 Filed 04/27/06 Page 7 of 7