My response to the Attorney Discipline Committee's general counsel in regard to his reasoning behind refusing to docket my grievance against Belknap County Attorney Andrew Livernois and Deputy Belknap County Attorney Keith Cormier.

1. Brian R. Moushegian
General Counsel
Attorney Discipline Office
Re: Request For Reconsideration of Refusal to Docket Grievance against Andrew B. Livernois, Esquire
I am in receipt of your refusal to docket this grievance and want you to take a moment to reflect
further on the contents of your letter first and on the content of my complaint secondly.
First, your own words betray the fact that Attorney Livernois is guilty of a lie in this scenario:
“…there is no reasonable likelihood that a hearing panel would find clear and convincing evidence
that his representation to the court that he received no counter offer did not violate Rule 8.4( c ).”
Perhaps this is a mere syntax error on your part, but this is from YOUR unvarnished letter on file, not
my grievance. That unequivocally states there is evidence Livernois DID violate rule 8.4 C.
There is clear and convincing evidence Attorney Livernois lied on multiple occasions, and nothing in
your letter even addresses the lies he told to the Laconia Sun, and thereby the general public. Further,
your letter attempts to soften my accusations. I did not allege “deceit” in these statements, and a lie is a lie
where I went to school. When we swore to an honor code at Norwich University, intent had nothing to do
with the question of whether or not someone lied. This is a black and white issue, and the fact that a self-
represented party is suddenly more responsible for setting a liar in the profession straight speaks volumes
about your own profession’s lack of professional accountability.
Further, why bother to offer anyone an opportunity to file a grievance with your office if you are
always going to wait for a judge to act to right the wrong before you take up the case? Have you ever
heard of biased judges in criminal courts? Have you noticed on the record the prosecution has so far
received every single request they asked for?
Both the Livernois refusal to docket letter and the Cormier letter on the same subject profess that since
the judge didn’t act there is no evidence that anything untoward happened that violated your rules. This is
what is wrong with the very system you pretend to be a check and balance on. If only judges can
admonish or punish people for professional conduct violations what is your office even being funded for?
If you will not act on legitimate, honest, diligently prepared complaints like mine, what do you actually

2. do to earn your weekly paycheck? Who are you checking and balancing if you refuse to even investigate a
county attorney who is openly professing to have the judge on his side and flouting your professional
rules of responsibility? I have repeatedly brought issues of misconduct to the judge’s attention, and he
refuses to acknowledge them because of the fact that I represent myself. He does not respect or appreciate
my need to take this position and defend my name.
The fact that nobody is running against Livernois in the upcoming election is not lost on me. He is all
Belknap County has. Yet, he committed serious breaches of your rules. It is your ethical duty to hold him
responsible. Your letter completely ignored the footnote I raised about those who hold public office. They
set the standard. If the standard is all lawyers lie as long as the ends justify the means, strike the rule. As
of right now the rule reads as it is written, so please don’t refuse to enforce it as if this is an innocent
misunderstanding.
This is all about a counter offer nobody disputes. It was made, and the only person who suggests it was
not serious is Livernois himself. He has provided no affidavit evidence on his own behalf to your office to
dispute my contentions. I never intended that offer to be a joke. I didn’t insert phrases like “ha ha” or
“here’s one to make you laugh..” My offer was in full seriousness, and Livernois had no evidence to infer
otherwise based on the actual text of the email.
I can legally say “Andrew Livernois is a liar” and never be the defendant in a successful civil suit for
libel, slander or defamation.
With regard to the “gag order” motion at issue, Attorney Livernois made QUOTED statements in the
public press that openly profess to selfish motivations and preferences for keeping certain facts out of the
public eye. A colleague of yours selected for your hearings panel (which I am sure is filled with attorneys
known for their honesty and dedication to the profession) spent a good amount of his own time stepping
into this case to help put down this motion.
I will reserve my right to file another grievance if the judge agrees your colleague is correct in his
Amicus brief. Yet, I also have to ask for reconsideration as far as the deficiencies of your letter.
Specifically, we have Attorney Livernois literally admitting to a locally published newspaper that this is
his first gag order request. We have him admitting to being part of the filing process. Then we have him
laying out reasons that are improper, reasons that do not ever justify the need for a gag order. And you
refuse to docket this case?
You explained in the Cormier letter that there was not sufficient evidence to show anything improper
about the motion since there was no stated inference by Cormier that there was any improper motivation
behind the request. Then we have Livernois admitting (in a printed article he has not disputed the
accuracy of) that he prefers the courts to handle all case matters, not the press. He wishes to control two
areas of this government’s checks and balances on abuse of power. He wants to hold sway over the press
and the prosecutor’s office. This is right out of the Communist playbook, and you and your panel pretend
this is the good, old, righteous every day judicial system you swear to serve? You give these “clear and
convincing” contradictions a free pass?
You refuse to actually abide by nearly the entire first page of your own rule book if you continue to
insist on waiting for a judge to act on the motion before you can decide it is not worth the paper it’s

3. printed on. It’s barely three pages long and full of lies and misconceptions about the very rule system you
profess to defend and enforce. It is easy to see the holes in it, and every attorney has a duty to research the
facts and the law before signing a motion. Clearly both Livernois and Cormier failed in this regard. YOU
have the jurisdiction to act on these transgressions just as much as a judge does, if not more so.
Both of your letters contain gross misrepresentations of the facts and the record. You describe
Cormier’s “gag order” request (in the July 2nd
letter) as an attempt to “prevent purportedly inappropriate
extrajudicial pretrial publicity.” Have you read the motion itself? There is no mention of “inappropriate”
statements in the press. Cormier does not specify what kind of extra-judicial statements should be barred.
He wants them all banned (SEE PAGE 2, Paragraph 8 of State’s Motion For a Court Order Prohibiting
Pre-Trial Publicity):
“Extra-judicial statements in the media strike at the heart of the fair and impartial
administration of justice and threaten to undermine the integrity of the criminal justice
system, and therefore cannot be allowed to occur.”
Those are Cormier’s words, not mine. None of the legal cases cited in this motion are applicable or
reflect any court enforcing rules of professional responsibility on a non-lawyer self-represented party. I
think the ACLU brief covered that ground fairly well, which I included in my grievance. I thought it
would open your eyes to the depth of junk law and logic the county attorney’s office applied to this
excuse for a legal pleading. Apparently you refuse to acknowledge one of your own respected colleagues
in regard to this motion being frivolous. For your reference, here are some definitions for the word:
Frivolous, adjective
friv·o·lous | ˈfri-və-ləs
Definition of frivolous
1a: of little weight or importance She thinks window shopping is a frivolous activity.
b: having no sound basis (as in fact or law) a frivolous lawsuit
2a: lacking in seriousness a frivolous conversation
b: marked by unbecoming levity was criticized for his frivolous behavior in court
(Source: Merriam Webster)

4. Reading that you would not consider the question of whether or not Rule 3.6 is relevant to me while
you also explained why it’s actually not relevant to me was the best part of engaging in this whole
process.
I fully expect you to stand your ground and protect your own. This exercise was more so to prove to
myself how broken the legal system really is. When accountability committees like yours shrug their
shoulders at misconduct like this and point at the judge to do the dirty work they swore to take up
themselves, this profession is at a new low in this country. I hope when the judge does act to sanction this
behavior you will change your tune and stand up for what is right. We should never allow such abuses of
the legal profession to be considered the normal method of operation for attorneys in this state.
Signed this 14th
day of July, 2020
Rich Bergeron
107 Cotton Hill Road
Belmont, NH 03220
(603) 630-6235