Cynthia Gilman, Esq.: criminal member of the NH Bar

While there's good reason to suspect the NH Bar Association is just as self-serving as the rest of the judicial branch, but somebody has to take a stand for my son's rights. His mother sure as hell won't, and her hyper-zealous lawyer is even less likely to do so. For facilitation of contempt and the child abuse of parental alienation, this corrupt, criminal and downright reprehensible "attorney at law" ought be disbarred. The following complaint has been notarized and mailed to the Professional Conduct Committee:

1. This grievance is against Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq. of The Law Offices of Cynthia P. Gilman, at 40 W. Brook Street, Manchester, NH 03101.
2. I am the Respondent in the case XXXXX in the Cheshire Superior Court.
3. The Petitioner, Kerri McKinnon is being represented by Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq. of Manchester, NH.

FALSE STATEMENTS OF FACT
4. In a Motion to the Cheshire Superior Court, Cynthia Gilman made impossibly false “statements of fact,” maliciously implicating the Respondent as being several months in arrears on support.
5. Despite this false statement, made with demonstrably malicious intent, no retraction or factual clarification of any kind has been made.
6. This action is directly counter to N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1), “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”

FACILITATION OF CONTEMPT
7. Further, and more egregious, Atty. Gilman has wantonly facilitated Contempt of Court, and in so doing has acted as an accessory to child abuse:
8. On December 16, 2010, the Petitioner filed a motion for and was granted a temporary restraining order against the Respondent, her third attempt in a third jurisdiction for the third consecutive “holiday season.” Prior attempts (in New Hampshire) were summarily denied.
9. Being represented by counsel, it can be reasonably inferred that Atty. Gilman had a hand in this subversive abuse of process, pandering to the unlawful desire of her client to alienate the parties' minor child from his father.
10. On December 22, 2010 the Petitioner was explicitly Ordered by the Lynn District Court of Lynn, MA that she was to abide by the Parenting Plan set forth in the matter of 08-M-0302.
11. At 4:51PM on December 22, the Respondent contacted the Petitioner's counsel, Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq. by phone regarding arranging visitation pursuant to the Parenting Plan.
12. During this call, Atty. Gilman claimed to have contacted her client; while claiming at the same time to have informed her client that defying orders of visitation would constitute contempt, Atty. Gilman explicitly stated, “I recommended to my client that she not show for visitation.”
13. The Petitioner had a history of bad faith conduct leading to several Contempt findings against her; it can be reasonably inferred that counsel made this recommendation with full knowledge that Contempt, even of visitation matters, carries virtually no weight in the Court.
14. To make matters worse, this recommendation to refuse to facilitate visitation comes the day before the Respondent was to spend Christmas Eve, and the following holiday week with his son.
15. Through this disgraceful action, it is herein stipulated that Cynthia Gilman acted directly as an accessory to Contempt, and to the abusive alienation of the parties' 7-year-old boy.
16. It is unquestionable that condonation and recommendation of such a subversive abuse of due process is an indescribably abhorrent and indefensible act.
17. These actions have effectively rendered a 7-year-old boy fatherless for the “holiday season.”

CONCLUSION
18. These actions of Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq. are abhorrent; N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(a)(c) clearly states, “A lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.”
19. A “valid obligation” pursuant to Parenting Plan exists, and there has been absolutely no denial of that Order by any Court to date.
20. As a member of the Bar, Atty. Gilman ought to recognize her obligation to the law and the Orders of the Courts, but instead seems to have chosen a hyper-zealous participatory refusal to act in accordance with those Orders.
21. Notably, her actions are contrary to the best interests of the parties' 7-year-old son, who is the victim of what has crossed the line from zealous representation into a participatory act of Contempt.
22. Attorney Gilman's actions, having been perpetrated with knowledge that her counsel was to commit an act of contempt and fraud against a Court, simply cannot be a more clear violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a), “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly or induce another to do so, or through the acts of another.”
23. Attorney Gilman's actions, are counter to Rule 8.4(b), as she has perpetrated a “criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.”
24. By recommending that her client commit a willful act of contempt, she has disregarded Rule 8.4(c), “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
25. Through recommending a contemptuous act to her client, Attorney Gilman has taken violation of Rule 8.4(e) to a bold new extent, not only offering guaranteed results to her client, but in fact actively acting in a “means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.”
26. Bearing the title of “Esquire” ought imply that admission to the Bar holds one to a higher standard, to that of an “officer of the Court”; this clearly contemptuous and abusive behavior from an “Attorney at Law” disgraces and disreputes the entirety of the legal profession, and desecrates the reputation of the New Hampshire Judiciary as a whole.