Our reporter, in an effort to get documents that will verify allegations swirling around Superintendent Barbara Powers, filed with the Court an Appeal to Expedite
the FOAA answer. What did our reporter get for an Answer on the 11th? A wonderful Answer to the WRONG REQUEST!
Does the Town Government of Falmouth have to pay for TOTALLY WRONG ANSWERS from DrummondWoodsum? DumbonWhatsit is responding for the School Dept. On the 12th the reporter received an Answer from Thompson Bowie repeating the same WRONG ANSWER word for word responding for the
How dumb can these two firms be? Perhaps they’re doing this to fake being moronic to lull us into a false sense of prevailing over them, only to up their game
to the point that they respond correctly. Our reporter was stunned that any firm could be this confused over such a simpler matter.
Now our reporter needs to send another letter to the Court explaining that the Thompson Bowie Answer duplicates the exact same mistakes that DumbonWhatsit made because it looks like Thompson Bowie was cheating off DumbonWhatsit papers.
Finally, are the taxpayers going to be hosed by these two firms and have to pay them to file a TOTALLY WRONG ANSWER?
February 11, 2013 Also Via email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Reade Wilson, Esq.
84 Marginal Way
Portland, ME 04101
RE: Michael Doyle v. Town of Falmouth & Falmouth School Dept.
DOCKET NO. CV-14-17
In your “Defenses/Affirmative Defenses” section items 1 to 8 are related to a request earlier in 2013. This action is directed to a request dated 29 October 2013 and paid for on November 4, 2013.
No reply has been received for this request, no denial has been received, and hence the time you refer to has yet to toll for this action.
In your response your answer is for the School Dept. Will you also be filing an answer for the Town as well?
If you are going to correct these mistakes I request that the correction be filed within one week of this date and copied to me to expedite action on this matter.
3 Shady Lane
Falmouth, ME 04105
February 12, 2013 Also Via email to: email@example.com
Mark Franco, Esq.
Three Canal Plaza
Portland, ME 04101
RE: Michael Doyle v. Town of Falmouth & Falmouth School Dept.
DOCKET NO. CV-14-17
In your “Defenses/Affirmative Defenses” section items 1 to 8 are related to a request earlier in 2013. This action is directed to a request dated 29 October 2013 and paid for on November 4, 2013.
No reply has been received for this request, no denial has been received, and hence the time you refer to has yet to toll for this action.
If you are going to correct these mistakes I request that the correction be filed within one week of this date and copied to me to expedite action on this matter.
3 Shady Lane
Falmouth, ME 04105
More lawyers suspended, more to come likely. These are just the poor slobs that aren’t connected to the power members of the Bar. They have health, addiction, and depression problems that go unnoticed until they spin off the legal reservation and make their problems too noticeable, not to notice.
Remember these are just the ones that run afoul of the Bar, what about all of the lawyers that are just going full bore to screw over their own clients? One of them might even be considered one of the top 20 lawyers in Maine and named as one of the top 100 lawyers in all of New England. What’s the chance of that character EVER being brought before the Bar for anything other than an award for Best Lawyer of the Year?
Waterville lawyer suspended for 6 months over handling of text messages in divorce case
By Judy Harrison, BDN Staff
Posted Feb. 04, 2014, at 5:10 p.m.
Last modified Feb. 04, 2014, at 8:17 p.m.
BANGOR, Maine — A Waterville lawyer was suspended Monday from practicing law for six months, according to the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar.
The suspension of Charles T. Ferris is effective March 3. He has practiced in Maine since passing the bar exam in 1992.
Ferris also must cooperate with the counsel for the Board of Overseers in an audit of his office files, computers and phones. To be reinstated, Ferris must complete the suspension and purge files of and turn over text messages he improperly accessed.
Complaints against Ferris were lodged in March 2012 by two fellow lawyers, the decision ordering the suspension said. They centered on his use of a subpoena to access more than 50,000 text messages from U.S. Cellular in a divorce action in which he represented the husband, against whom a protection from abuse order had been issued.
Ferris did not notify opposing counsel that he had sought the information as required. He also allowed his client to obtain information about text messages sent and received on his estranged wife’s phone from the cellphone provider.
A hearing before Superior Court Justice Donald Alexander was held last month in Waterville District Court. The judge found that Ferris’ violations of the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly with regard to their impact on opposing parties and third parties in litigation, were many and significant, according to the Board of Overseers.
The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar was created by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in 1978 to govern the conduct of lawyers as officers of the Court.
Portland lawyer suspended from practice for 3 years
Posted July 24, 2013, at 12:33 p.m.
By Judy Harrison, BDN Staff
Last modified July 24, 2013, at 7:06 p.m.
AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Board Overseers of the Bar announced Tuesday that David Hunt of Portland had been suspended from the practice of law for three years.
The suspension, ordered by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, is retroactive to Aug. 18, 2012. The court suspended half of the suspension provided Hunt does not violate any bar rules during that time period, according to a press release issued by the board.
“The suspension is based upon Hunt’s incapacitation and his violations of various provisions of the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct,” the release said.
An investigation by the board found that Hunt “made improper use of his operating and trust account … by placing some advanced fees in his operating account” instead of in a trust account.
Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice Jon Levy found that due to his impairment related to his abuse of alcohol and unidentified health problems, “Hunt has been unable and remains unable to properly discharge his professional duties as a member of the bar.” Levy ordered a monitor, who is not named in court documents, be assigned to Hunt’s practice during the 18-month suspended suspension.
The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar was created by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in 1978 to govern the conduct of lawyers as officers of the court. The board regulates the conduct of lawyers by enforcing the Maine Bar Rules and the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the court.
People may inquire about filing a complaint by contacting the Board’s office by telephone at 623-1121, by visiting the board’s website, http://www.mebaroverseers.org, or by sending a detailed written signed complaint letter to: P.O. Box 527, Augusta, ME 04332-0527.
Brunswick lawyer suspended for 4 years
Posted Jan. 10, 2013, at 6:26 p.m.
By Judy Harrison, BDN Staff
AUGUSTA — The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar on Thursday announced that Brunswick attorney Carolyn M. Asquith has been suspended from practicing law for four years.
The suspension, which is effective immediately, was imposed after seven unrelated complaints were filed against her by former clients, a fellow attorney and a District Court judge.
Asquith, 36, was found to have violated seven rules of professional conduct and one bar rule. The complaints involved family law matters, according to the suspension order signed by Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice Jon Levy.
Although she was suspended for four years, one year of that suspension was suspended. After one year, Asquith may ask to have more of her term of suspension suspended if she meets certain conditions, including seeking treatment for the depression Asquith said caused her professional lapses, according to the board of overseers.
For information on filing a complaint with the board of overseers, visit www.mebaroverseers.org or call 623-1121.
Gerry Spence has argued some of the biggest cases in the United States over his very long career. Watch the video below to get his take on what going to court really means. Think about this in relationship to our previous post on this tab about plea bargains. If your lawyer tells you the deck is stacked against you and your only break is to plead guilty, even if you're innocent, what do you do?
Innocent until proven guilty, what a joke on all of us. Is their any wonder the entire legal profession and court system is held in such low regard, and justifiably so.
How Plea Bargains Are Making Jury Trials Obsolete
January 7, 2014 03:30:00 am
By Matthew T. Mangino
Trial by jury has become so rare in modern American criminal jurisprudence that the chance of being convicted at trial is little more than one in one hundred.
That doesn’t mean that people are not getting convicted. They are—in record number. America’s prisons are literally filled to capacity.
In today’s criminal justice system, convictions come by agreement. The tradition of being tried by one’s peers, established centuries ago and affirmed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has all but disappeared.
The plea bargain has made jury trials obsolete.
Ninety-seven percent of federal criminal prosecutions are resolved by plea bargain. In state courts the numbers are comparable. The plea bargain may be the grease that keeps the criminal justice system churning, but it may also be a sign of a system in need of repair.
Judge John Gleeson, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently wrote, “An excessively high rate of guilty pleas is unhealthy for our justice system.”
Why? The only scrutiny a case may receive in federal court is that afforded by a grand jury and, as long-time Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau once said, he could get a grand jury to indict a “ham sandwich.”
At trial the government must prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The government must firmly convince the jury of every element of the offense and that the defendant was the person who committed the crime.
But, as Gleeson observed, “Our [grand jury] system permits indictment to be returned on an ex parte presentation consisting entirely of inadmissible evidence.”
Much of the evidence presented to a grand jury would never see the light of day in a jury trial. The burden of proof before a grand jury requires merely a showing of probable cause; it does not require showing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and does not need unanimity of the grand jurors.
State court cases are often vetted at a preliminary hearing. The standard of proof required at that stage is prima facie. This means the government must prove it more likely than not a crime has been committed, and that the defendant is the one who committed the alleged crime.
The burden falls well below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
“The notion that defects in the grand jury’s screening function will come out in the wash at trial is sound only if a meaningful percentage of cases go to trial,” wrote Gleeson.
The three percent of prosecutions which go before a jury is not a meaningful amount. As a result, the cleansing effect of trial has all but disappeared. “Beyond a reasonable doubt”— the bedrock of the criminal justice system—plays no role in an alarming number of cases.
What this means is that an insignificant number of offenders heading off to state or federal prison were proven guilty of anything. Sure, those defendants acknowledged their guilt by choosing to enter a guilty plea; but shouldn’t the most revered legal system in the world provide something more in terms of protection for those accused of a crime? For 97 out of 100 people accused of a crime in federal court, all that has been proven against them is that a crime has been committed and that they “probably” committed it—the same standard that permits a police officer or federal agent to make an arrest.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt never enters the equation.
So what is the big deal? No one innocent of a crime would plead guilty, right?
Some alarming statistics suggest that there is some incentive to enter a guilty plea regardless of guilt or innocence.
In some jurisdictions, particularly federal court, the gap between sentences following a plea and sentences following a trial has gotten very wide.
According to Human Rights Watch , the average sentence for federal drug offenders who pleaded guilty was five years, four months, based on raw federal sentencing data for 2012; for those convicted after trial the average sentence was 16 years.
A system that lowers the threshold for proving guilt and creates incentives for the innocent to plead guilty is “unhealthy” indeed.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly and George and the former district attorney for Lawrence County, PA. You can read his blog at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on twitter @MatthewTMangino. He welcomes comments from readers.
First, this is the three that were caught, who knows how many more are lurking in the shadows out there in Maine?
Second, we suspect their joint and several defense will be: The Money Made Me Do It. It’s always that damn money that causes lawyers to screw their clients, someone else’s clients, and sometimes (rarely?) each other. Remember Verrill Dana only fired their partner, not when they caught him stealing from the firm’s client (they made him pay it back to the account) but good grief, but when he stole from the partnership.
This is likely why you rarely see a happy go lucky lawyer walking around Downtown Portland. They have this grim look on their face because they are planning how they can screw their clients by padding the billable hours invoice, how they can screw another lawyer out of his cut of the settlement check, and that constant worry in the back of their mind about whose coming up behind them to screw them out of some of their money.
Are there any honest lawyers out there? Of course there are, they are just rare, very rare.
By Scott Dolan firstname.lastname@example.org
The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar is seeking disciplinary action against three lawyers it contends willfully misled courts by allowing a practice that became known as “robo-signing” during the nation’s mortgage foreclosure crisis.
The allegations against the lawyers, who represented GMAC Mortgage, resulted from a case that had national repercussions, including the temporary suspension of foreclosures by GMAC and other big mortgage lenders. The case also led to congressional hearings and prompted all 50 states to enter a joint investigation into the mortgage industry.
The three lawyers, who worked for the Portland law firm Drummond and Drummond, are scheduled to appear Monday before a three-person grievance panel at the Board of Overseers of the Bar in Augusta. The hearing is expected to continue into Tuesday with witness testimony.
The three – Philip Mancini of Portland, Paul Peck of Portland and Alexander Saksen of Pittsburgh, Pa. – have denied the allegations in documents filed by their attorneys and have requested that the disciplinary petition be dismissed.
The foreclosure case that led to the allegations involved Nicolle Bradbury of Denmark. It gained national attention when her attorney found that GMAC Mortgage and other banks engaged in a pattern of “robo-signing” sworn court documents – processing them quickly for use in foreclosures without reviewing records to verify the information.
Bradbury’s attorney, Thomas Cox, who represented her for free through Pine Tree Legal Assistance, is first on a list of witnesses the Board of Overseers of the Bar intends to call at the disciplinary hearing. He filed a formal complaint against Mancini, Peck and Saksen on March 7, 2011.
“Cox’s complaint alleged that Saksen and Peck improperly prepared affidavits in foreclosure cases. Cox further complained that after a June 2010 deposition, all three attorneys learned that numerous affidavits the firm had prepared and filed contained misstatements of facts, which rendered them inherently unreliable,” according to the disciplinary petition filed by Aria Eee, assistant bar counsel to the Board of Overseers of the Bar.
Cox brought the Bradbury case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in 2011 seeking to have sanctions imposed against GMAC or the Federal National Mortgage Association – Fannie Mae – or to find either in contempt. But in a 5-1 decision, the court upheld a lower court’s ruling against Bradbury, though Justice Ellen Gorman wrote in the majority opinion that the foreclosure filing in Bradbury’s case is “a disturbing example of a reprehensible practice.”
“That such fraudulent evidentiary filings are being submitted to courts is both violative of the rules of court and ethically indefensible,” Gorman wrote.
Maine ultimately received a $21 million share of a $25 billion settlement reached in 2012 by 49 states and the five largest mortgage lenders.
FTM was recently at the Cumberland County Courthouse on one matter, the Hall case on the 4th, and made a point to exam the Complaint in the Preti case. It was 46 pages long and had around 158 paragraphs.
We have the first two pages loaded below, consider this Chapter 1.
Todd Hall Defendant
Mary Davis, Esq. Hall’s Defense Lawyer
Clifford Strike, Esq. Witness to his own ineffective counsel to Hall
Unidentified female AAG for the State
Judge Joyce Wheeler
Our reporter was initially given permission to video record the proceeding by Judge Wheeler until Strike whispered in the AAG’s ear as they sat next to each other at their table. When Judge Wheeler wanted to revoke her previous permission our reporter suggested an alternative, our reporter stated Hall could invoke his rights under Rule 76H and designate the reporter to make an audio recording for him. This caused Judge Wheeler to call a recess and left the courtroom. At which point Strike stood up and stated, “This is bullshit.” Apparently Strike didn’t want a video recording of him being grilled over his ineffective advice of counsel by Davis.
When all the lawyers had fled the courtroom, our reporter panned left to right of the empty courtroom twice at 09:40 on the 4th. When the three lawyers returned from their private meeting in Judge Wheeler’s chambers it was decided that the video and audio was not permitted. Davis was so mad that Hall wanted a recording that couldn’t be modified by the State, Court, or the AG’s office she requested to be removed from the case the very morning the hearing was to begin after a wait since May 6th of this year. After all, what’s nearly six months in the life of a wrongly treated victim of his previous lawyer? Apparently it has no meaning to Davis, who threw a fit like a schoolgirl, when Hall wanted to assert his rights. Judge Wheeler granted the withdrawal and Hall gets back in line to wait for the next court date.
Then Judge Wheeler ordered that the previous recordings of Strike’s comment and everything said earlier was to be deleted, supervised by two court officers, including the video of the empty courtroom for “security purposes”. For sure, we don’t want video of all the ‘high tech security’ in the oldest courtroom in the building being disclosed, because there isn’t any.
Open court proceedings? Not in Maine courtrooms that we’ve seen, and likely NOT in any of them. Would you want a video recording made of you screwing the victims of the courtroom antics of some of these lawyers?
Whether it’s Alabama or New York, whether it’s buying votes or wasting tax dollars, in the end it’s always the same, the Ruling Class refuses to obey the laws they want the police to enforce on the public.
Over 200 years ago a Ruling Class raised taxes, punished the populace with corrupt courts, sent the soldiers (police) to subdue the dissenters, and bring the citizens to greater subjugation.
How did that turn out for the Ruling Class?
“The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”…Thomas Jefferson
Speaking of newspapers, “With each outlet that closes, opportunities to ferret out fraud and public waste and abuse are lost.”…Preet Bharara
U.S. Attorney, New York
Perhaps every town and city in America should have a website such as FTM. Perhaps the laws keeping secret misconduct by public employees should be vacated, it might promote less misconduct.
“A Nation of Sheep will beget a government of Wolves”
…Edward R. Murrow
Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Lanny A. Breuer Speaks at the Alabama Public Corruption Investigation Press Conference
Washington, D.C. ~ Monday, October 4, 2010
Good morning. My name is Lanny Breuer. I am the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice.
I am pleased to have my friend and partner, FBI Assistant Director Kevin Perkins, here with me today, as well as Special Agent in Charge Timothy Fuhrman.
This morning, federal agents began arresting 11 individuals on charges that they conspired over an approximately 19-month period to corrupt the legislative process in Alabama. Also this morning, we unsealed a 39 count indictment against these individuals, which a grand jury sitting in Montgomery, Alabama, returned last week.
The 11 defendants named in the indictment are charged with forming a corrupt network of legislators, businessmen and lobbyists, whose aim was to manipulate the democratic process for personal gain. We allege that from February 2009 through August 2010, two owners of gaming and entertainment establishments and one of their employees; three registered lobbyists working on their behalf; four Alabama state Senators; and one State-employed legislative analyst, all participated in a wide-ranging conspiracy to buy and sell votes on legislation in Alabama that would directly benefit the business interests of two of the defendants, Milton McGregor and Ronald Gilley.
The alleged criminal scheme was astonishing in scope. Indeed, as alleged in the indictment, the defendants’ corrupt conduct infiltrated every layer of the legislative process in the state of Alabama. Specifically, as charged in the indictment, Mr. McGregor and Mr. Gilley employed lobbyists, including defendants Thomas Coker, Robert Geddie and Jarrod Massey, in a full-scale campaign to bribe and coerce state legislators and others into supporting pro-gambling legislation that they favored. Put simply, they are charged with having offered huge sums of money and other benefits in exchange for the legislators’ votes. Defendants Larry Means, James Preuitt, Quinton Ross and Harri Anne Smith, who are all current Alabama state Senators, are charged with accepting or agreeing to accept – and, in some cases, demanding – these bribes, in the form of campaign contributions, campaign appearances by country music stars, fundraising assistance and other things of value. Additionally, one of the defendants, a legislative analyst named Joseph Crosby, is charged with having accepted monthly payments of $3,000 from McGregor in exchange for taking official action to amend the pro-gambling legislation in a way that would benefit McGregor. Also today, a plea agreement with former lobbyist Jennifer Pouncy was unsealed. Pouncy has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy for her role in the vote-buying scheme.
In carrying out this scheme, the defendants are alleged to have gone to great lengths to try to keep their criminal conduct from coming to light – including by repeatedly calling one another on what they perceived to be “safe” phones, meeting with one another in person instead of using telephones to communicate, and agreeing to use “backdoor” ways to transfer campaign and other contributions in order to avoid detection.
Despite these efforts to obscure and conceal their conduct, the indictment alleges that the defendants’ tactics became increasingly brazen as a vote on the corrupted legislation drew near. Ultimately, we allege, in the scramble to secure the necessary votes to pass the pro-gambling legislation, McGregor and Gilley authorized their lobbyists and other co-conspirators to give the legislators whatever they wanted, as long as it secured their vote. For their part, the state senators---Smith, Preuitt, Means and Ross---solicited, and in some cases demanded, these things of value in exchange for their critical votes on the legislation.
In short, the indictment describes a brazen criminal scheme to buy and sell votes, thereby depriving the people of Alabama of the honest services of their elected representatives. The people of Alabama, like all our citizens, deserve to have representatives who act in the public’s interest, not for their own personal financial gain. The kind of conduct alleged here undermines the public’s faith in our democratic institutions, and cannot go unpunished.
Public corruption investigations and prosecutions are among the most difficult that the Criminal Division undertakes. These cases, in which the stakes are always high, often attract great scrutiny and require the utmost professionalism to pursue. I want to commend the dedicated and talented attorneys in our Public Integrity Section for their work on this case, as well as the two Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to this matter, and the hardworking FBI agents who have been investigating it.
I have said before that we will follow the facts where they lead and root out corruption wherever we find it. Today, the facts have led us to arresting and charging these 11 defendants with federal crimes. I’ll be happy to take a few questions but first let me turn it over to Assistant Director Perkins.
Prepared Remarks Of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara
Public Corruption In New York: More Than A Prosecutor’s Problem
Citizens Crime Commission
April 22, 2013
I want to thank Richard Aborn and the Citizens Crime Commission for inviting me and for organizing events like this.
Before I get started, please silence your cell phones and body wires, as the case may be.
Why am I here this morning and why am I talking about this?
Because public corruption in New York, from all the available evidence, appears pervasive and because it is more than a prosecutor’s problem.
Recent and not-so-recent events paint a fairly dismal portrait of the state of government in the State of New York.
It is a portrait of a show-me-the-money culture, as I have said before.
It increasingly seems that the best way to find Albany on a map is to look for the intersection of greed and ambition.
So is corruption in New York rampant and is it worse than elsewhere? All the available evidence says that the answer, sadly, is yes.
Given recent events, I am reminded of a great and funny science fiction book I read when I was a kid—The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, by Douglas Adams. It describes an alien warrior species known as Vogons. In chapter two, the author describes a particular Vogon captain:
“It has been said that Vogons are not above a little bribery and corruption in the same way that the sea is not above the clouds. . . When [this Vogon captain] heard the words ‘integrity’ or ‘moral rectitude,’ he reached for his dictionary, and when he heard the chink of ready money in large quantities he reached for the rule book and threw it away.”
So, is Albany full of Vogons? Of course not.
To be sure, there are countless honorable and ethical and honest people serving in elected office—people who believe that representing ordinary Americans is a high calling, a calling to improve one’s community and one’s country in some small measure.
But I don’t think anyone can disagree with the conclusion that the ranks of those convicted in office have swelled to unacceptable levels.
Consider the list of defendants convicted by just our Office in recent years.
It is the kind of roll call that causes frustrated prosecutors to wonder, from time to time, whether our most corrupt public officials are even capable of being deterred from committing crimes:
• Senator Carl Kruger
• Senator Hiram Monseratte
• Senator Nicholas Spano
• Senator Vincent Leibell
• Senator Efrain Gonzalez
• Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin
• Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio
• Councilman Larry Seabrook
• Councilman Miguel Martinez
• Councilwoman Sandy Annabi
And that does not count the plethora of pending cases that are still playing out in federal court in the Southern District.
Nor does it count the significant public corruption cases brought by other prosecutor’s offices around the state.
Consider also the breadth and diversity of the officials caught up in our corruption probes:
• They have been State Senators as well as State Assemblyman.
• Elected officials as well as party leaders.
• City council members as well as town mayors.
• Democrats as well as Republicans.
• In an age often decried for increasingly bitter partisanship, we can say that public corruption in New York is a bipartisan affair.
Or, consider what some recent arrested politicians have been caught on tape allegedly saying about the pervasiveness of a corrupt mindset:
• One Assemblyman allegedly said this, talking about his Albany colleagues: “Bottom line. . . if half of the people up here in Albany was ever caught for what they do…they…would probably be [in jail], so who are they BS-ing?”
• A city councilman allegedly said this: “That’s politics, that’s politics, it’s all about how much…and that’s our politicians in New York, they’re all like that, all like that. And they get like that because of the drive that the money does for everything else. You can’t do anything without the f***ing money.”
What’s more, the examples of tawdry graft spelled out in recent complaints and indictments evince both a casualness and a cockiness about corruption in New York in 2013—and suggest, dispiritingly, that not a lot has changed.
Some of the allegations have a positively retro feel to them.
Take, for example, a recent case where officials first met at Sparks Steakhouse on Valentine’s Day of this year and then retired to parked vehicles to exchange envelopes of cash in connection with a bribery scheme.
It makes you want to ask, with some frustration: “What is this? The eighties?” Have we not progressed at all?
Now, one of the most commonly asked questions about public corruption is: Why? Why do we have this problem, however extensive one thinks it is? Why do officials who are supposed to hold the public trust and who are supposed to know better keep breaking the law—even knowing what the consequences will be?
I’m not a behavioral psychologist or a political pundit or a social scientist, so I don’t really know the answer. The answer may not be knowable, and probably there is no single answer, even if it were knowable.
I suppose it is some combination of hubris and greed and ambition on the part of corrupt and corruptible officials.
I suppose, also, that there are temptations in the system, weaknesses in oversight, and gaping holes in transparency.
But at the end of the day, it seems that a culture of corruption has developed and grown, just like barnacles on a boat bottom.
And it seems that such a culture has become so embedded that even a series of tough and successful prosecutions that have separated so many lawmakers from their liberty has not been enough to thwart others from following in their felonious footsteps.
And just as with barnacles on a boat bottom, when a growth is permitted to spread and grow unchecked, it unsurprisingly takes an unrelenting, collective effort to clean up.
And so after such a disheartening spate of scandals, it is heartening to see that many people are beginning to take the problem more seriously than perhaps they have until now.
And that is good because state lawmakers matter.
State legislators, believe it or not, are important.
Each senator represents more than 300,000 people; each assemblyman, almost 130,000.
Senators confirm appointments of state officials and court judges.
State lawmakers determine our budget. They decide how much money goes to children's education, to public safety, to transportation, to health, and to public welfare. They decide what constitutes a crime and how it should be punished. And they draw the boundaries of the electoral districts in which you live, work, and vote.
So it is dispiriting that the public’s increasing sense of disillusionment with their government has reached unprecedented proportions.
A Quinnipiac poll from just a week ago found that 87 percent of New Yorkers said that corruption in the state is a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” problem. Eighty–seven percent.
And the percentage of those saying it is a “very serious” problem is the highest mark since Quinnipiac began asking the question ten years ago.
But perhaps it should not be all that shocking that so many people have lost so much faith.
When a New York state senator is more likely to be arrested by the authorities than defeated in an election, people lose faith.
When voters’ campaign contributions can routinely foot the bill for a fancy lawyer when that legislator is later charged with corruption, people lose faith.
When state senators are advised by the majority leader’s counsel—in writing!—to hand deliver their financial disclosure forms to avoid federal mail fraud charges, people lose faith.
When a state legislator can be convicted of corruption crimes and still keep his life-long pension, people lose faith.
Such a dynamic gives new meaning to what Michael Kinsley once said: “The scandal isn’t what’s illegal; the scandal is what’s legal.”
So let's just pause for a moment to see if we have this straight: In New York, a politician can figure out a way to buy his way onto a ballot and into the legislature; upon election, he can turn around and sell that very office to the highest bidder for favorable votes; upon indictment, he can use former supporters' campaign contributions to fight the criminal charges; upon conviction, he can be forced out of office and imprisoned for years.
But he will retain for life a generous state pension—paid for by whom? The taxpayer. And that right is enshrined where? In the state constitution. And that is written by whom? The legislature.
Now, does anyone who is not drunk on power or addicted to self-dealing think this is remotely rational?
Just so we’re clear, I, of course, have no formal opinion on this. I’m just sayin’.
Now, we all have a role in addressing this problem.
Prosecutors, of course, have an important role.
Before getting to that, let me say a few things about our overall approach to public corruption.
First, let me make clear what our mission is not about:
We are not trying to criminalize ordinary politics.
We are not trying to wag our fingers or thump our chests.
Nor, quite frankly, are we even demanding that our government officials be virtuous or vice-free.
We are prosecutors, not morality cops.
We simply want people in high office to stop violating the law. It seems like a simple and modest request—people elected to make laws should not break them.
Prosecuting public corruption, for the most part, is like prosecuting every other type of crime. As with every other area, we are fundamentally fearless and appropriately aggressive. We go wherever the facts and the law take us.
But there are at least two considerations that are perhaps special to public corruption cases.
First, corruption investigations are especially sensitive—among the most sensitive that any prosecutor can conduct.
For that reason, we take great care to make sure that we are as cautious and discreet as we can possibly be when conducting investigations of public officials.
We would be doing a public disservice if we were to unnecessarily cause reputational harm to someone who was duly elected or appointed to high office.
But that said, we have an obligation to investigate vigorously all criminal misconduct no matter where it may be happening and no matter who may be responsible.
No one is above the law, no matter how wealthy or important, and no matter how many votes he or she may have garnered in the last election.
Where there is smoke, there is often fire—that conclusion has become irrefutable over the last few years. And we are duty-bound to go where the smoke is.
Second, we have a fierce dedication to political neutrality and independence—bedrock principles that are particularly important in how we go about handling corruption cases.
Every prosecutor’s office must guard its independence—from politics and from partisanship and from undue pressure, whether from the public or from Washington.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York has an especially long and proud tradition of absolute independence.
After all, we were founded in 1789; we have prosecuted some of the most storied cases in the history of the nation; and we have shown time and again that no individual or institution is beyond the law’s reach.
There is a reason we are known as the Sovereign District of New York. And while some may view that as a pejorative, we view it as a badge of honor, and it confers particular legitimacy on our public corruption investigations.
For my own part, before I became the U.S. Attorney, while I was a counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, I spent close to a year leading the investigation into politicization at the Justice Department.
And so I know first-hand what can happen to public trust when even a whiff of politics or political ideology enters into prosecutorial thinking.
As a friend of mine once remarked, there are three political parties—Republican, Democrat, and federal prosecutor.
Now, before I say more about the prosecutor’s role, let me point out that a portion of our anti-corruption team is here this morning.
Seated are the Deputy U.S. Attorney Richard Zabel, Criminal Division Chief Lorin Reisner, Public Corruption Chief Brendan McGuire and a number of corruption Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
I get to make speeches from time to time, but these are the career prosecutors who do all the work and deserve all the credit.
These are the career prosecutors who have shone such a bright line on the corruption problem in Albany and elsewhere.
So, what is our strategy for, and our role in, fighting corruption?
It’s a very simple one.
We bring criminal cases. And we will bring any case that we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury.
But a couple of updates.
First, given the unmistakable pervasiveness of corruption, we are redoubling our efforts and will seek to be even more aggressive than in the past, and you have seen some of the fruits of that resolve in recent weeks.
So what does that commitment mean?
It means being as aggressive and proactive on public corruption as we are on gangs and drugs and organized crime and insider trading and everything else—because whenever corruption is on the rise, that means democracy is on the decline.
And that means that law enforcement will use every aggressive and creative tool at our disposal—wiretaps and confidential informants and undercover agents and stings. And, yes, seeking the cooperation of elected officials who can help us investigate and prosecute their own corrupt colleagues.
It means, also, adding resources to the fight. In the last 18 months, we have added people to our public corruption unit so that we can be more effective.
In addition, I have recently met with the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI, George Venizelos, to discuss expanding our corruption efforts. And I can tell you that he shares my view that corruption should be an absolute top priority for federal law enforcement in New York. We will also continue to work with the fine men and women of the Department of Investigation, led by Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn, who has been one of the pioneers in fighting corruption.
We also met recently with leaders of watchdog groups to see if there are other ways we can be effective.
Our goal is to change the calculus of even the most dense public official—so that he or she will finally realize that the reward for violating the oath of office is not reelection, but prison.
Now, of course, there are other excellent prosecutor’s offices throughout New York State, both local and federal.
And I agree with the proposition that we could use even more cops on the beat. God knows, there is no shortage of public corruption work.
But no matter how many cops on the beat, I think the feds will always be natural leaders on corruption matters.
Federal prosecutors are natural leaders in this area because (1) we generally have deeper resources (to introduce undercovers, mount stings, and pay controlled bribes, among other things); (2) we have a track record of success; (3) we can usually threaten more substantial penalties; and (4) as I already mentioned, we have a generations-old tradition and reputation for absolute independence and nonpartisanship.
But we welcome more cops to the beat, and in fact have been collaborating with local offices for a long while—our recent work with DA Robert Johnson of the Bronx and DA Thomas Zugibe of Rockland, I think, serve as state-wide models for cooperation. And I hope we build on that model.
So, we prosecutors will keep doing our jobs—aggressively and collaboratively. And if that means locking up more corrupt officials, so be it.
But we cannot just prosecute our way to cleaner government, and in any event we face a number of challenges even in our law enforcement efforts. Let me mention just a couple.
First, there is a substantial transparency problem throughout New York government.
You may remember our successful CityTime investigation, in which we partnered with Commissioner Hearn and DOI—that was the case in which a government contractor, SAIC, bilked the city for about half a billion dollars for a timekeeping software program.
As that investigation revealed, disclosure requirements, when not sufficiently rigorous, can provide a false sense of security and the illusion of transparency. Currently, only prime contractors and first-tier subcontractors doing work for the City file financial disclosures.
So apparently all you have to do to conceal a fraud and deceive the City is set up a sham second-tier subcontractor. In CityTime, that approach resulted in the City being victimized year after year to the tune of more than half a billion dollars.
Fortunately, as a result of our case against the prime contractor, the City has been made whole. But that may not happen next time. That is something to think about.
One more point on this—the creation of databases and websites which make certain information about government officials public, which seem to promote transparency and are unveiled to great fanfare are a step toward true transparency but by themselves are not enough.
A database that is accessible only by physically going to a city office building to access through an outdated computer portal does not accomplish its intended purpose.
A government website that is so difficult to navigate that it is nearly impossible to piece together any real-life understanding of the information it purports to convey or that offers millions of rows of data but without any context or meaningful ability to conduct analysis is not that much more helpful than keeping the information locked away in a filing cabinet.
We should perhaps hold our applause for certain transparency measures until we’ve scrutinized whether they truly reveal anything about the workings or behavior of government and public officials.
A related transparency challenge is the difficulty of being able to separate illicit money transfers from legitimate ones.
We believe in the old adage: Follow the money.
But that is so much harder to do when the money trails are hidden. When every state or local elected official is able to lawfully moonlight as a lawyer or accountant or consultant and may lawfully withhold deep details of that work, prosecutors face substantial challenges.
Again, I don’t have a formal view on these things. I’m just sayin’.
And there are challenges beyond transparency problems as well.
As I mentioned recently, perhaps most disheartening is the deafening silence of the many individuals who, over the course of this investigation (and others), saw something and said nothing. They learned of suspicious and potentially criminal activity being conducted in the halls of the Capitol and elsewhere, and they said nothing. No one made a call. No one blew the whistle. No one sounded the alarm.
As I keep saying, corruption is more than a prosecutor’s problem, and everyone with a stake has to be part of the solution. That means the politicians, the press, and the public have a vital role to play also.
First, the role of politicians, of lawmakers.
Apart from refraining from breaking the law, the single most important thing they can do to restore public trust is to act seriously and earnestly to reform the system and the culture of our government and our politics.
There have been a lot of proposals offered in recent days, and every New Yorker should applaud the effort. And we prosecutors applaud any effort that makes our jobs easier.
The proposals are wide-ranging—there are measures to limit contributions, to limit spending, to limit terms, to limit discretionary funds. There are measures to repeal certain laws and mandate more transparency and compel the reporting of crime.
I am not in a position to offer opinions on particular proposals—but I do agree with those who say no single fix will get us far down the road to reform. And nothing will really change until people undertake a fundamental reform of a corrupt culture.
After all, notwithstanding all the challenges I mentioned, every single one of the cases that my office has brought was possible under existing authorities and existing resources.
But it makes sense for everything to be on the table in terms of proposals.
And I will say one more thing: speaking as not just a prosecutor but also as a citizen of the state, New Yorkers should not settle for something weak when there is an appetite and an opportunity for something strong.
Now, what about the Fourth Estate? Does the press have a role?
The press is often in the best position to investigate, and shine a light on, corrupt officials and corrupt practices.
My chief lament about the decline of the local newspaper is that with each outlet that closes, opportunities to ferret out fraud and public waste and abuse are lost.
Just as we and the FBI are adding resources to fight public corruption, if you run a newsroom, I would hope you would think of adding reporters and resources to the investigative side of the business. I bet it’s as fun a beat as a reporter can have.
So all of you press folks back there, tell your editors I said that.
Rather than just covering cases that my office and others are already bringing, figure out ways to break new ground, to cover new stories.
Groundbreaking corruption coverage, by the way, is not just good copy; it is a path to good government.
Finally, what about the public? That is where the solution really lies.
People need to demand more. It is not enough just to be fed-up.
After all, as Edward R. Murrow observed, “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
The public has to demand more—individual voters acting and speaking collectively.
New York tends to have the best of everything, and it deserves better in this area also.
New York is home to the safest large city in America; it should not harbor one of the most corrupt governments in the nation.
New York is full of the best problem-solvers anywhere.
And no state has people who are more thoughtful, more industrious, more resilient, more demanding, and more impatient than New York.
And if there were ever a time for New Yorkers to show their trademark impatience with the status quo and to show it loudly, it is now.
FTM continues to get tips from a source concerning child trafficking in Maine. Many times it’s hard to comprehend the allegations and how could these people be involved in such misconduct. Then we read the statement of former Maine State Police Sgt., David Pickering, and start to wonder maybe the allegations just might be true.
Then we get this article from the source and it seems in some states and in some towns, these allegations, as horrific as they are, become a criminal complaint and a lawyer is facing perhaps a sentence of a 100 years.
Posted: Oct 13, 2013 6:28 PM EST Updated: Oct 13, 2013 7:10 PM EST By Hollie Hojek, Reporter -
CAPE CORAL, FL - A local lawyer is accused of running a global child porn ring. Federal court documents were released detailing a disturbing operation. John Powell - or "Rex" as people call him - had a dark side, no one knew about. Powell's alleged secret life of sex with young children was kept hidden until now. Court documents detailed the supposed global sex operation - revealing Powell would travel to foreign countries just to have sex with children. Indiana investigators are calling the former Cape Coral attorney a ring leader in the global child sex operation dating back to 2009. Documents state John Powell, along with two other men, traveled across the United States and other countries to perform sexual acts with two young boys. "As a lawyer, I'm sure other attorneys [and] every other person in this community, you have to be shocked and sickened by this," said Cape Coral attorney Stuart Pepper. Pepper is a fellow Cape Coral attorney. He first heard about the child pornography charges against Powell in 2011. Powell was officially charged in 2012. "For about a year and a half, this case was completely under the radar for the entire country. It's amazing how the Feds were able to do this," said Pepper. Pepper says what is even more surprising is that not even the attorneys who knew Powell best had any idea what was going on. "How a man like Rex can work among us, with lawyers day after day, and still sneak away and do his sick stuff around the world without being detected is a remarkable achievement – in a bad way," said Pepper. The other two men involved reportedly bought a child from Russia for $8,000 to use in the child porn ring. The report states Powell and the two other men used a high definition camera to video record the sexual acts. "This man was literally a criminal mastermind," said Pepper. In June this year, one of the men involved pled guilty and faces 40 years in prison. Powell is charged with at least four counts of sexual exploitation. If convicted he could suffer the same fate or worse. "If Rex goes to trial, they are going to try him on all the counts and he could get charged on each count consecutively. He could easily serve over 100 years," said Pepper. Powell is expected to appear in an Indiana district court at the end of the month.
First the players in this little drama:
Daniel Lilly Esq. likely the top lawyer in Maine.
Peter DeTroy Esq. of Norman, Hansen, and DeTroy, likely not the top lawyer in Maine.
Toby Dilworth Esq. Drummond & Woodsum famous for his asinine quote, “we won, we won, we won.”
Kaile Warren, victim of massive legal malpractice.
Preti-Flaherty Law Firm, defendant in massive legal malpractice suit.
Sources close to this case report the following. At a recent on the record meeting, with the mediator, (a retired judge) this exchange took place in the review of Dilworth’s qualification as an expert witness on Legal Ethics.
Lilly: Did you state in this document that the AG’s office improperly dismissed an indictment against Mr. Warren?
Dilworth: I never said such a thing.
Lilly: Is that your signature at the end of this statement?
Dilworth: Yes, but I didn’t write that statement.
Lilly: Who wrote this statement for you?
Dilworth: DeTroy wrote it, I just signed it.
Lilly: Then you disagree with your written and signed statement submitted to this mediator and now claim that the AG’s office DID NOT improperly dismiss an indictment against Mr. Warren?
Dilworth: Yes, that’s correct.
Sources tell us that a motion is pending to disqualify Toby Dilworth, Esq. as an expert witness for Legal Ethics, due to his apparent inability to be able to author his own false statements and his dependence on Peter DeTroy, Esq. (the malpractice insurance carrier’s defense lawyer) to author his false, incorrect, and/or mistaken statements to mediators.
One of the driving forces that are the basis of this case was Lilly showing up at Preti-Flaherty with a Deputy Sheriff and a criminal subpoena. A box of documents was seized from one of the female attorney’s offices filled with proof of communications between Preti-Flaherty and another defendant that supports Warren’s position.
FTM is told that the legal malpractice policy has a million dollar deductible and the likely out of court settlement (after DeTroy’s law firm runs the legal meter on their client, the insurance company, for a few hundred thousand dollars) may well be in the Fifty Million Dollar range.
Many of us have seen and used flow charts, organizational charts, and timelines for various needs. Not in our lifetimes have we seen a child custody/abuse case charted in this fashion. What caught our attention was in the middle towards the bottom of the chart. A Bangor C.P.A. disappears just before he’s going to give information to the AG’s office. How is this even true, or for that matter, even possible in Maine?
Our research department went to work on Rod Hotham’s name and came up with the attached BDN article. When does a Maine CPA get indicted for “money laundering” his own money? It is vastly more likely he was laundering someone else’s money. It is possible those customers weren’t inclined to be identified by Mr. Hotham, and took steps to make sure that didn’t happen, ever.
This child case keeps us wondering what the hell is going on in Maine, kids disappear and no one goes to jail. If any child, yours, mine, or someone else’s goes missing on your watch, you need to go to jail, period. The crime that should be charged is “aggravated misplaced minor” and the prison sentence should be until the child is located, dead or alive.
CHILD CASE CHART, see attached pdf
Whereabouts of Hotham still a mystery
Posted By Renee Ordway On June 24, 2011 (6:14 pm) In Bangor, News, State
I know that a missing accountant from Bangor isn’t nearly as interesting a story as the tale of Boston mobster James “Whitey” Bulger and his capture this week in California, but all the talk about Bulger’s years on the run got me thinking.
Just where the heck is Rod Hotham?
Though not nearly as colorful a character and not nearly as dangerous as Bulger is alleged to be, Hotham is certainly Bangor’s most notorious fugitive.
You rarely hear anything about him anymore, though prior to his disappearance in 1992, he and his wife were well-known in the city’s social and civic circles. He was a well-respected accountant and family man.
He vanished Sept. 16, 1992, just hours before he was to meet with the state attorney general to present what he said was evidence of white-collar crime that allegedly involved politicians and prominent members of the state’s business community.
But Hotham himself was under investigation in 1992 and accused and later indicted federally on nine counts of money laundering and eight counts of bank fraud.
By the time he was indicted in November 1992, Hotham had been missing for two months.
That was nearly 19 years ago.
Today he would be 66 years old.
Hotham’s family is convinced he was killed by the people whom he was about to inform the attorney general about.
Supposedly Hotham had boxes of evidence against some important people in this state and he had been sleeping in his clothes with a gun by his side out of fear for his life. His wife, Lisa, and the couple’s children supposedly had to go into hiding for a time because their family home was broken into several times.
Federal investigators and prosecutors have said through the years that they have no doubt that Hotham was and is on the run and in hiding.
One source I spoke to recently indicated that government agents had at least once come quite close to capturing Hotham in the southern part of the United States.
“From what I heard, they were only like an hour or a few hours behind him,” the source said.
This week, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim McCarthy wouldn’t confirm that information, but he said Hotham’s case was very active.
For a time, Hotham was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List — far behind Bulger, of course — but a recent check of the FBI’s website didn’t turn up his name.
McCarthy said Hotham was now on the U.S. Marshal’s fugitive list and the actual case against him had been turned over to the now defunct Bank Fraud Task Force, which was formed during the savings and loan scandal.
When I called him on Friday, McCarthy referred me to an assistant U.S. attorney in New Hampshire, who used to be on that task force and was familiar with the Hotham case.
He didn’t return my call on Friday.
Though it was in no way as interesting as the Bulger case and the story of Boston’s Irish mob, the investigation into Hotham and his disappearance led me into a couple of back alleys and dark parking lots while I was covering the story.
At one of those late night meetings I was warned that my house might be bugged and that it might be in my best interest to have some form of protection.
It was all very conspiratorial and bordering on dangerous and, quite frankly, any decent reporter’s dream story.
Nothing ever happened.
We once sent another reporter to Vermont for an entire week because of a tip that Hotham was hiding out there and was about to be arrested by federal agents. That poor reporter sat in a dingy motel room for a week itching for something to happen. It never did.
I once got called in the middle of the night after someone called the newsroom to report that they were certain they just saw Hotham pull out of the post office parking lot on Harlow Street.
I spent all night tracking license plate numbers and names and finally found the uncle of some poor guy who had just moved to Bangor and apparently resembled Rod Hotham, i.e., dark hair and glasses. He gave me his nephew’s Bangor phone number, which I called at about 1 a.m. The poor guy had no idea who Rod Hotham was, but confirmed he owned the car in question and that he had been at the post office earlier. He actually was a pretty good sport.
It was a lot of time spent and there was no story, but the man’s uncle did offer me a place in his new company’s pyramid get-rich-quick sort of business.
Prosecutors have long said that Hotham would probably have only been looking at about three years in prison if he had been convicted of the crimes he was charged with, and noted that the episode would be well behind him if he had stayed and gone to court.
Some have questioned whether the federal case against him would even be viable anymore since the alleged crimes occurred two decades ago.
On Friday, McCarthy said such cases were reviewed each year and that the case against Hotham was still good for prosecution.
But Hotham has been a federal fugitive for 19 years. While hundreds of others across the country have been caught, the whereabouts of Bangor’s bespectacled CPA remains a mystery.
Article taken from Bangor Daily News - http://bangordailynews.com
URL to article: http://bangordailynews.com/2011/06/24/news/bangor/whereabouts-of-hotham-still-a-mystery/
By Mark LaFlamme, Sun Journal
Posted Oct. 02, 2013, at 7:42 p.m.
Daryn Slover | Sun Journal
Ronald Hoffman appears in Franklin County Superior Court in Farmington in September 2012.
RUMFORD, Maine — Lawyer Ron Hoffman was suspended from practicing law a year after admitting to phoning
in apair of bomb threats to schools in 2012.
The suspension itself comes with a twist — according to the Maine Overseers of the Bar, Hoffman’s suspension
was, itself, suspended, meaning he can continue to practice law on a probationary basis.
Hoffman had been charged with misdemeanor terrorizing after phoning bomb threats to Cushing and Academy Hill schools in Wilton on March 29, 2012.
He later pleaded no contest to the charge. He was ordered to serve a year in jail, although that sentence was also suspended.
Hoffman, 53, lives in Sumner and practices law in Rumford.
According to the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, Hoffman is required to comply with the conditions of his Maine Assistance Program contract for the next five years. He is subject to random mental health and drug testing and must submit his law practice to monitoring by a Wilton lawyer. Additionally, Hoffman was ordered to attend and complete a seminar focusing on stress management in the law field.
If Hoffman violates any of those conditions, his suspension could be implemented.
When he entered his plea in September 2012, Hoffman’s attorney, James Martemucci, told the court that Hoffman suffers from multiple severe and chronic diseases. Martemucci said that at the time the threats were made, Hoffman was taking 10 medications a day with no monitoring of interaction.
Along with diabetes, Hoffman suffers from Graves’ disease, which is an autoimmune disease that affects the thyroid, compulsive disorder and depression, Martemucci said. There is a “Graves’ rage” from the disease that can cause irrational behavior, but Martemucci said Hoffman has accepted 100 percent of the responsibility.
“I apologize to Franklin County. It’s my fault, and I take responsibility,” Hoffman said at the court appearance last year. “I’m not asking for forgiveness or for anyone to feel sorry for me.”
Hoffman spoke of how his actions deeply affected his wife, their two adopted children, a foster child, colleagues and friends. He also said he was highly sensitive to medications.
Mercy, Mercy, Mercy, we need some Mercy. Yes, just before they kill you by mistake. Here’s one of the reasons Medicare is going down the financial drain. Defendants that kill and maim patients don’t man up and say sorry or even oops, for that matter. What they do is lawyer up, like a mob hit man, and spends millions of dollars in legal fees to beat the defendant into the proverbial ground.
How does any of this impact Medicare you may wonder? Well in this instance the reluctance of Mercy Hospital to go from the first offer of $2,500 to the second offer of $10,000 didn’t quite cover the money due Medicare to reimburse their payments, which is over $32,000. Now think how many people are almost killed or crippled in a hospital in one year. The most recent death count in one year was around 198,000 from just mistakes in hospitals. Perhaps a million more people were severely and permanently injured. Take this $32,000 times those million people and you get $32,000,000,000 (about 5% of the yearly budget), which would go a long way to keeping Medicare solvent.
So it’s not Mercy Hospital using their legal team to screw over one little old lady in Falmouth, it’s hospitals all over America screwing over little old ladies out of a fair payment for damages caused by incompetent employees and thereby screwing every taxpayer in America, about 53% of the working population.
Mercy Hospital’s latest ploy, cripple the elderly woman’s left arm, and then file a motion to prohibit her son from typing her paper work. You can read Mercy Hospital’s motion and the response below.
This is our court system at its best, screwing the victim, and America, all in one smooth motion.
You might think the following is an aberration in Maine Courts, sadly it happens on a fairly regular basis.
On Wednesday we were in Farmington Superior Court watching
Judge Donald Marden perform, er preside over a case that’s been in the courts since 1994.
First we were denied the right as a reporter to video or audio record the hearing, you can see why as you read further. At 09:30 J. Marden told the Defendant in Farry v. Lavigne CV-94-61, “I don’t chew my cabbage twice.” Then Marden proceeded to repeat his previous statement. Who wouldn’t want to see that on YouTube.com? At 09:35 Marden told the Defendant, “If you’ll be quiet for a moment I’ll tell you what it is.” This seems to be the polite way of saying, just shut up. Not too condescending if Judge Marden was talking to a second grader. The best quote at 11:12 was the Defendant requesting for the SECOND TIME to invoke her rights under Rule 76H to have her own recording of the Hearing made. Marden said, “You have a right to a recording and that’s it.” As Marden indicated by pointing to the official transcription made by the court reporter sitting in front of the witness stand.
In Rule 76H there’s no place that allows any judge to override the rule at their own whim. It states, the Rule, SHALL NOT BE DEFEATED. I guess when this Rule was dreamed up, the authors hadn’t heard about Judge Donald Marden’s veto power over it.
We’re going to have to do an article about the wave of thefts by women from their employers. In the latest episode we have an office that victims of misconduct in hearings, trials, and proceeding in Maine courts depend upon to get printed records of who said what in the courtroom.
This is no small item as all Appeals hinge upon the record of dialogue in the courtroom. FTM has direct knowledge how it is impossible to get a written reply from that office or for that matter to get a return phone call.
Now we see why. At least one of the staff was too busy working the mother/daughter scam to be bothered to do, you know, her job. Who’s naïve enough to think that this charge was the first and only time this woman flimflammed some money from the State. It’s likely this is the first time she was caught. Don’t hold your breath for this headline: After extensive auditing the Transcription Office discovered thousands of dollars stolen over the 15-year employment of this culprit.
Posted Aug. 15, 2013, at 1:45 p.m.By Judy Harrison, BDN Staff
BANGOR, Maine — A former employee of the Maine court system who was charged last month with attempting to steal funds and trying to cover up the attempted theft pleaded not guilty Thursday.
Danielle A. Beckwith, 47, of Hampden, who worked as the supervisor of the Office of Transcript Production, did not appear at her arraignment at the Penobscot Judicial Center.
Beckwith’s attorney, Marvin Glazier of Bangor, pleaded not guilty on her behalf to one count of attempted theft by deception and two counts of tampering with public records. The conduct that led to the charges occurred on Oct. 10 and 17, 2012, according to the complaint dated July 18.
Because Beckwith is charged with misdemeanor crimes, she was not required to enter her pleas in person.
As of Nov. 21, she no longer worked for the court system, according to Mary Ann Lynch, spokeswoman for the courts. Lynch declined Monday to comment on the charges or how the alleged attempted theft was discovered.
The Office of Transcript Production, where Beckwith worked, is on the third floor of the Penobscot Judicial Center. Employees prepare transcripts of court proceedings that are requested and paid for by attorneys or others who request them.
While working as a supervisor on Oct. 10, Beckwith “did intentionally create or reinforce the impression that an individual named Alex Winchester had paid a deposit on a transcript” and was entitled to a $2,750 refund, the affidavit said.
Alex Winchester is the name of Beckwith’s daughter, according to Assistant Attorney General Leanne Robbin, who is prosecuting the case.
On that same date and again a week later, Beckwith allegedly made false entries on a standard reimbursement form to the State of Maine Administrative Office of the Courts indicating that Winchester had paid a deposit for the transcript on Aug. 3 and was owed a refund.
If convicted, Beckwith faces up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $2,000.
By USA Today August 5, 2013 6:55 am
The FBI gave informants permission to break the law at least 5,658 times in one year, according to newly disclosed documents that show how often the nation's top law enforcement agency enlists criminals to help it battle crime.
The Justice Department ordered the FBI to begin tracking crimes by its informants more than a decade ago, after the agency admitted that it had allowed Boston mobster James "Whitey" Bulger to operate a brutal crime ring in exchange for information about the Mafia. The FBI submits that tally to top Justice Department officials each year but has never before made it public.
Agents authorized 15 crimes a day on average -- from drug sales to bribery and plotting robberies. FBI officials have said that permitting informants, who are often criminals, to break the law is an indispensable part of investigating criminal organizations.
"It sounds like a lot, but you have to keep it in context," said Shawn Henry, who supervised criminal investigations for the FBI until he retired last year. "It's not taken lightly."
USA TODAY obtained a copy of the FBI's 2011 report under the Freedom of Information Act. The report doesn't spell out what types of crimes its agents authorized. It also does not include information about crimes sources were known to have committed without government permission.
Crimes authorized by the FBI almost certainly make up a tiny fraction of the total number of offenses committed by informants for local, state and federal agencies each year. The FBI was responsible for about 10% of criminal cases prosecuted in federal court in 2011. Federal prosecutions are outnumbered by cases filed by state and local authorities, who often rely on their own sources.
"The million-dollar question is: How much crime is the government tolerating from its informants?" said Alexandra Natapoff, a professor at Loyola Law School-Los Angeles who has studied such issues.
Denise Ballew, a spokeswoman for the FBI, would say only that circumstances in which informants are allowed to break the law are "tightly controlled" and subject to Justice Department policy. Justice rules limit when and how informants can engage in criminal activity. Agents are not allowed to authorize violent crimes under any circumstances; the most serious crimes must first be approved by federal prosecutors. Still, the department's inspector general concluded in 2005 that the FBI routinely failed to follow many rules.
"This is all being operated clandestinely. Congress doesn't even have the information," said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., who sponsored a bill that would require federal agencies to notify lawmakers about the most serious crimes informants commit.
The only ones we seem to catch aren’t protected by the Bar, the Courts, and their colleagues. Remember the Verrill Dana crooked lawyer when his secretary turned him into the managing partners when she caught him stealing $75,000 from a CLIENT. What did Verrill Dana do? They covered it up and put the money back into the client’s account until they caught the same lawyer stealing from the Law Firm. What did they do then? They fired him of course, because crimes against the sheep, er, clients don’t really count in legal world.
Gee, a D+ for judicial accountability, maybe that might be a tad too high for what’s going on in Maine. Just think of all the screwing Maine residents take that never make it to the papers. People talk about gun control, what we really need is pen control for lawyers.
By Bill Trotter, BDN Staff
Follow on Twitter Find on Facebook
Posted July 15, 2013, at 1:17 p.m.
Last modified July 15, 2013, at 4:08 p.m.
PORTLAND, Maine — A prosecutor from Hancock County admitted Monday morning to a state supreme court justice that she violated rules of the Maine Bar when she prosecuted a former Gouldsboro man on gross sexual assault and misdemeanor assault charges.
Mary Kellett, assistant district attorney for Hancock County, appeared Monday before Justice Ellen Gorman after the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar recommended late last year that she be suspended. A board grievance panel met in Bangor last fall to consider a misconduct complaint filed against Kellett by Vladek Filler and determined that Kellett had violated seven bar rules in handling Filler’s assault case. The board’s recommendation that Kellett be suspended is the only such recommendation that board staff can recall for a prosecutor in Maine, according to Jacqueline Rogers, executive director of the board.
Gorman was expected on Monday to review arguments in the misconduct complaint and then to determine whether Kellett actually had violated rules that govern the conduct of licensed attorneys in Maine. Instead, the assistant attorneys general representing Kellett and J. Scott Davis, counsel for the bar, each told Gorman they had reached an accord by which Kellett would admit to violating bar rules and accept a suspension of her law license.
During the board hearing last fall, Kellett denied that she violated any bar rules. On Monday, however, Kellett acknowledged that she made inappropriate statements during her closing arguments at Filler’s first trial, in January 2009, and that she suppressed and failed to disclose evidence that Filler sought for his legal defense leading up to that trial. Kellett said the violations were mistakes and were not intended to deprive Filler of a fair trial.
“I want to acknowledge that I made errors in the prosecution of the Filler case,” Kellett told the judge in brief remarks. “I regret the harm that my errors caused.”
Filler was accused of physically assaulting his then-wife in December 2005, of raping her in April 2007, and then of assaulting her again a few days later, all at the Gouldsboro home they shared at the time. He was convicted at his first trial, in January 2009, of raping and assaulting his wife. After a retrial was ordered, he was acquitted in May 2011 of gross sexual assault and of one misdemeanor assault but was convicted of the second misdemeanor assault charge.
Filler’s second trial was prosecuted by Paul Cavanaugh, another prosecutor who works for Carletta “Dee” Bassano, district attorney for Hancock and Washington counties. Filler served 21 days in jail for the misdemeanor assault conviction.
Filler consistently has maintained that his now-former wife made up the allegations because their marriage was deteriorating and she was seeking an advantage in an expected custody dispute over their two young sons. Filler, who now lives in suburban Atlanta, won custody of the boys in his subsequent divorce from his wife.
In a Dec. 5, 2012, report in which it recommended that Kellett be suspended, a Board of Overseers grievance panel wrote that it was concerned by two aspects of Kellett’s conduct in prosecuting Filler.
The first was Kellett’s comment during her closing arguments that there was no evidence that the allegations against Filler were part of a custody dispute over their children between Filler and his wife. The defense wanted to introduce such testimony in the January 2009 trial, but Kellett successfully argued before testimony began that any such testimony should not be allowed because it would confuse the jury. Justice Kevin Cuddy, the trial judge, did not allow the testimony to be introduced, but still Kellett brought it up to the jury in her closing arguments.
Following the trial, Cuddy and the Law Court separately determined that Kellett’s comments during her closing were unfairly prejudicial against Filler, the panel indicated.
The panel also was concerned over Kellett’s failure to produce and turn over prior to the January 2009 trial “at least two pieces of exculpatory evidence” to Daniel Pileggi of Ellsworth, who was Filler’s defense attorney at the time. One was a copy of a 911 call about Filler’s wife behaving strangely, which led to police being told of the supposed rape, and the other piece involved statements that Filler and his wife provided to Ellsworth police about an unrelated incident five days after the rape supposedly had occurred.
Pileggi sought both pieces of evidence to use as examples of Filler’s wife’s state of mind before and at the time the rape allegations were reported to police.
After last fall’s grievance hearing, the panel determined that Kellett violated bar rules by:
• Engaging in conduct unworthy of an attorney.
• Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
• Failing to employ reasonable skill and care.
• Failing to make timely disclosure of the existence of evidence that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense or reduce the punishment.
• Suppressing evidence that she had a legal obligation to produce.
• Assisting the state to violate the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure and the court’s order.
• Employing means that were inconsistent with truth and seeking to mislead the jury.
After Monday’s short hearing, Kellett and Bassano left the courtroom through an alternate entrance without speaking to reporters. Attempts Monday afternoon to contact them were unsuccessful. Kellett and Bassano consistently have declined to publicly comment on Filler’s misconduct complaint.
Filler told Gorman Monday that he thinks Kellett should be permanently disbarred. He said the charges against him had irreparably harmed him and his two young sons. Kellett’s mishandling of his case, he said, was an “abuse of power” that he described as willful, inexcusable and prolific.
“This is about intentional misconduct,” Filler told Gorman. “I have been fighting [this] for six years. I am pleading with this court for justice.”
Gorman told Filler that Kellett’s violations were a first offense and that she did not intend to disbar the prosecutor. The judge did say that suspension was a significant punishment that would have a lasting effect.
“It is a sanction that would continue to follow Ms. Kellett for the rest of her life,” Gorman said. “It is not a light sanction to impose.”
Gorman also offered Filler an apology on behalf of the state’s criminal justice system.
“You did not receive a fair first trial,” the judge said.
Following the hearing, Filler told reporters in a courthouse hallway that he was disappointed Gorman would not consider disbarring Kellett. He said he did not think his second trial was fair either, though Gorman said it was.
“This was not about punishment [for Kellett],” Filler said. “I have an interest in making sure that other people are not subjected to such destructive [prosecutorial] abuse.”
He declined to indicate whether he accepted Gorman’s apology, saying that accepting it is difficult to do considering how he and his sons were affected by the criminal charges and subsequent trials.
William Fisher, one of two assistant attorneys general who represented Kellett throughout the grievance process, said after Monday’s hearing that in 10 years, Kellett has handled 10,000 criminal cases. That amount is not abnormal, he said, but still amounts to a “very high” volume of cases. There are financial constraints on Maine’s criminal justice system, as there are throughout state government, he said, which has resulted in some Cumberland County prosecutors handling as many as 3,000 or 4,000 a year.
Fisher said one mishandled case should be considered an aberration for Kellett, not the norm.
“Ms. Kellett has suffered and learned from these proceedings,” Fisher said. “I believe she is going to be a better prosecutor.”
As part of Kellett’s admission, Fisher said, prosecutors in Bassano’s office will work with the Office of the Attorney General to establish systems by which they can keep better track of what types of evidence police departments have and do not have in each criminal case that Bassano’s office is prosecuting. The attorney general’s office also is working with Bassano’s office to review proper procedures for preparing for trial and for conducting trials, he said.
Gorman said she would review the agreement between Kellett and the Board of Overseers, which calls for a 30-day suspension, and that she planned to suspend the prosecutor but that the suspension itself would be suspended, meaning that Kellett will be able to continue to practice law unless new misconduct issues arise, at which point the suspension could go into effect.
Gorman said she expected to issue her final decision sometime later this week.
What is Judicial Accountability and why does Maine get a D+ for a grade? Is it possible that our judges, many of whom come from the ranks of previous government positions, can’t seem to adhere to the Rules, Laws, and Constitution they swore to uphold, protect, and defend?
We have witnessed more than a few judges ignore current laws and make up a ruling on the fly. One woman on the bench disclosed her husband was a law partner with highly suspect Portland lawyer, yet she claimed that wouldn’t influence her judgment. Can you imagine the pillow talk that night when she disclosed she ruled in favor of a Plaintiff that her husband’s partner has spent the last 12 years trying to screw? Sure you can be impartial judge, no problem. Then she swapped courtrooms with another woman who was a partner in the firm when they hired another lawyer that has since been censured by a Bar committee.
The D+ is likely the result of the extreme lack of oversight by any organization with authority to rein in the misconduct of both lawyers and judges. We were under the mistaken idea that the Bar was to protect the client from the out of control misconduct of lawyers. Boy, were we wrong.
In instance after instance the staff at the Bar (the lawyers clubhouse is in Augusta where they can lobby against clients) office goes to the defense of lawyers and rejects complaints before they can reach a ‘review committee’ populated by guess who, more lawyers of course. Scott Davis and Ms. Eee’s names come up as the biggest problem to get any help from the Bar by clients.
Then we have Cabane Howard the gatekeeper for complaints against judges. Here’s an example from one source, Judge Paul Fritzsche, sitting in York County Superior Court, has a record of 77 and 0 ruling against Pro Se (where you can’t afford a lawyer and you go into court representing yourself) litigants. How about some truth in advertising here where Fritzsche hangs a banner in front of the bench that states:
YOU HAVE ZERO CHANCE OF WINNING IN THIS COURT, SO JUST TAKE YOUR SCREWING I’M ABOUT TO GIVE YOU, AND SHUT UP!
Maine courts favorite tools to put it to the Pro Se Plaintiff/Defendant is Summary Judgment and Default Judgment. Summary Judgment is where the court isn’t going to waste any time pretending to give you a fair hearing and then rule against you. They want to get home to mow the lawn. Default Judgment is a little trickier. They have to get the opposing lawyer to file papers with the clerk’s office at the courthouse and then not send a copy of them to you. If you don’t respond to the filing, that you didn’t get, in 20 days, poof, Default Judgment against you, and now you can take your screwing and shut up.
Finally, we have the Maine Supreme Court’s appeal system. Our sources tell us that all money judgments in liability cases are ALWAYS appealed for one simple reason. Between 18% and 23% of all money awards are reduced on appeal to our State’s highest court as being overly generous for the loss incurred. Our source couldn’t locate one case going back many years where the Supreme Court increased a money award as being less than adequate for the loss incurred.
You can draw your own conclusions on why our courts get a D+. At least it’s not an F.
“Mercy Hospital has an unusual high death rate in their operating room”, from a veteran Portland Attorney.
“We changed catheter providers and the insertion directions were changed without telling the staff, we ruptured around 23 bladders and everyone of them thought they were the only one this happened to at Mercy Hospital”, from a Charge Nurse.
“My family never leaves a member alone in a Mercy patient room, we set up 24/7 shifts to keep our relative from being killed by mistake”, from a Mercy Hospital CNA.
“It’s too bad we didn’t know this before I was almost killed by Mercy Hospital”, from a Plaintiff in a recent suit.
“Oh my goodness, she’s so lucky she didn’t throw a clot and die immediately”, from an Occupational Therapist at Brighton Medical Center after viewing photos of Plaintiff’s purple arm.
A Plaintiff recently filed the suit below against Mercy Hospital for crushing her left arm with a blood pressure cuff. Crushing it so badly that the nerves controlling the hand lifting and opening and closing the thumb function was totally disabled for almost a year. This was done to a woman that had just turned 93 years old a few days earlier.
You might think Mercy Hospital would step up, take responsibility, take all medical steps possible to mitigate the damages, and compensate the Plaintiff for the enormous amount of pain inflicted on an elderly woman. You would be wrong, very wrong. Mercy Hospital started hiring expensive legal defense law firms from London, New York, Boston, and finally one in Portland. One of the Boston lawyers thought he could order a family member of the Plaintiff as to who he was allowed to send emails to about this misconduct. A small sample of the unmitigated gall Mercy Hospital has for the victims of their cavalier misconduct. It seems Mercy Hospital was hoping the Plaintiff would die before a suit was filed
The last thing they did was to hire Chris Nyhan, Esq. of PretiFlaherty. This is the same Nyhan that had a three million dollar judgment against a client of his for terrible damages to a baby at birth. Nyhan’s defense, apparently rejected by the jury, was the damage was a pre-existing condition. It would seem that pre-existing condition would have had to take place between conception and birth, a condition that the jury probably thought was a ridiculous assertion by Nyhan. The first two offers from Mercy through Nyhan was for $2,500 and $10,000, the only problem is the reimbursement required for Medicare for the time at Falmouth by the Sea and Mercy Hospital is $32,000, which would be a net zero to the Plaintiff. Thanks a lot Nyhan. In reality Mercy Hospital has likely spent more than $32,000 already in legal fees to beat an elderly woman out of just compensation for nearly killing her.
Just to bring this suit the Plaintiff was denied a waiver of filing fees (the $150 charged by the courts to pass the paperwork to the clerk) by Superior Court Chief Justice Thomas Humphrey, and had to borrow $180 ($30 for the deputy sheriff to drive up Congress St. to State St. and deliver the Complaint to Mercy Hospital) to initiate a suit, that the possible settlement was just below the magic number of $150,000 that it takes to get a law firm to try a medical malpractice case twice, once before the Review Committee, and again before a judge. Apparently Judge Humphrey would like the Plaintiff to eat cat food for three weeks to compensate for the filing and service costs. The State of Maine Judiciary at its best. It makes us wonder whom Judge Humphrey might know on the Mercy Hospital Board or the doctors that have privileges at Mercy Hospital that he would deny a waiver to a 96-year old woman.
Below you can see Eileen Skinner, President of Mercy Hospital. We wonder what Eileen Skinner would do if someone at Mercy Hospital crippled her left arm for almost a year and caused great pain to her. That likely would never happen to Eileen Skinner, because she probably has, not only the good sense to go to Maine Medical Center, but also the morbidity (injuries due to malpractice) stats for Mercy Hospital.
(Editor’s Note: During the crushing of the Plaintiff’s arm at Mercy, the radiologist mistook a mass of blood clots on the lower right leg, the original reason for going to the hospital, for a tumor, and told a relative to prepare the Plaintiff emotionally to have her lower right leg AMPUTATED.)
CUMBERLAND, ss. STATE OF MAINE
DOCKET NO. CV-13-259
NOW COMES The Plaintiff and complains that the Defendant caused great bodily harm to Plaintiff through malpractice of medical services below the standard of practice that resulted in the loss of the use of Plaintiff’s left arm and left hand from early July 2010 until mid 2011 after extensive occupational therapy and physical therapy.
Towards the end of June 2010 Plaintiff came to the Mercy Hospital directly from the office of Phylidia Ku-Ruth, M.D. of Intermed Medical Group for treatment for a bunch on her lower right leg above the anklebone. At the time of admission Dr. Walter Keller was in attendance at the foot of Plaintiff’s gurney. Dr. Keller had since gone on the record at the hospital acknowledging that Plaintiff had no damage to her left arm.
A few days later on the Sunday of her admittance a hospital employee attached a blood pressure cuff to her left arm and inflated it while Plaintiff was medicated for pain for the right leg. Plaintiff came to in great pain calling for help to have the blood pressure cuff removed. Plaintiff’s arm was immediately swelling and turning purple. The swelling continued for several days until the upper arm was approximately nine inches in diameter and weighed close to thirty pounds. The weight of the arm caused the Plaintiff to list to the left when trying to walk to the degree she was off balance.
The damage was so severe Plaintiff had to go from Mercy to Falmouth by the Sea for rehabilitation to regain mobility for twenty days. During this time at Falmouth by the Sea Plaintiff was started on occupational therapy to regain the ability to open and close her left hand. The nerves controlling that motion were damaged during the blood pressure cuff incident.
After release from Falmouth by the Sea, Plaintiff was treated at her home until that fall when she began intensive treatment at the Brighton Ave. Rehab facility. For the next five months she was treated twice per week for both occupational and physical therapy during some of the coldest winter months. After doing the in office therapy Plaintiff spent hours at home doing exercises required to reinforce the supervised treatment.
Sometime in February of 2011 Plaintiff regained the ability to tie her shoe.
Up to and including the point of tying her shoe Plaintiff was in great pain from this injury, she was expose to very cold weather going to the rehab center, and extreme fatigue doing the required therapy.
This injury kept her from doing things around the house and even the ability to get out of a chair due to no ability to open her hand to place it on the armrest of a chair. Plaintiff was 93 years old when this malpractice was committed against her.
DEMAND FOR COMPENSATION
Plaintiff requests that all medical bills outstanding be paid in full, that Medicare be reimbursed in full, that her son be reimbursed for time and expenses for transportation of the Plaintiff to medical appointments due to this injury, and an amount to compensate Plaintiff for the pain, suffering, loss of the use of her left arm and hand for nearly a year, and permanent loss of 15% of her left land.
Respectfully submitted this 19th day of June 2013.
3 Shady Lane
Falmouth, ME 04105
This article in the Bangor Daily News is greeted with mixed emotions, disdain and surprise.
Disdain because the tiny amount paid to these clients is only for the dollar amounts that the clients can prove were missing from their accounts.
Surprise that any amount is paid to these victims. Noticeably excluded were amounts for malpractice. If that were to be included it would likely be an amount larger than the State Budget.
Maine clients reimbursed for dishonest conduct of their attorneys
Posted By Judy Harrison On June 26, 2013 (2:26 pm) In Court News, News, State
AUGUSTA, Maine — The Trustees for the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection has reimbursed $2,500 to two individuals who suffered losses caused by the dishonest conduct of their attorneys.
Money was disbursed to former clients of Carolyn M. Asquith of Yarmouth and Philip L. Ingeneri of Bangor. Claims involving Asquith’s former practice totaled $1,500 while those from Ingeneri’s amounted to $1,000, according to a press release issued Wednesday by the fund.
Ingeneri has resigned from the practice of law. Asquith is suspended from practicing, according to the release.
The fund was created in 1997 by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to promote public confidence in the administration of justice and the integrity of the legal profession, by reimbursing clients who suffer losses caused by an attorney’s dishonest conduct, the release said. Generally, such conduct involves the misuse of funds in the care of the attorney or the misappropriation of amounts for the attorney’s personal benefit.
The fund was not designed to address losses caused by legal malpractice and no amounts are payable to clients for such activity, according to the release.
“The attorney-client relationship depends upon the trust of clients,” Paul Sighinolfi, chairman of the fund said. “It is a shame when a few attorneys betray that trust and tarnish the reputation of the entire profession.”
All active Maine attorneys contribute to the fund through a $20 annual assessment to their annual license fee. None of the money in the fund comes from client fees or tax dollars.
More than $300,000 in reimbursements has been made to clients since the fund was created in 1997.
For more information about the fund, consult the fund’s website at www.mebaroverseers.org/lawyers_fund/index.shtml or call 623-7801.
Article taken from Bangor Daily News - http://bangordailynews.com
URL to article: http://bangordailynews.com/2013/06/26/news/state/maine-clients-reimbursed-for-dishonest-conduct-of-their-attorneys/
JUDGE: To form an opinion after careful consideration
TYRANT: A ruler who has no legal limits on his or her power by law or constitution.
We’re told repeatedly how dishonest the American court system has become and we just come across one example after another of just that, dishonest dealings with the public.
If you can manage to get a court, any court to rule perjury isn’t perjury, to verify fraudulent documents aren’t fraudulent, and to rule against you on any item no matter how big the mistake the court makes, poof, that mistake becomes the Law of the Case. This means the mistake now controls all other actions the court takes against the victim, er, respondent.
Which brings us to the Rochester, NH court on the 14th of June. Sources tell us that the house seized in this case was assessed for over $100,000 and sold for $12,500. How does anyone get a deal like that? It seems you have to be at the right place, at the right time, and according to the Certified Fraud Examiner, have your mortgage company sell your house they don’t own, to someone at a big discount. What could go wrong after that happens? During the hearing it was disclosed that the deed was POST DATED while litigation was pending over the alleged fraud perpetrated in the sale of the property by the mortgage company.
Below in this order you can read the Fraud Examiner’s report to the court, and the Confirmation of Registration as “news media” for our reporter, Michael Doyle and FalmouthToday.Me, which was on separate part of the application, with the Judicial Branch Communications Office for the State of New Hampshire.
Without taking sides due to lack of hard evidence from either side we do note that Handrahan has complained a great deal about
Justice Jeffrey Moskowitz from the District Court.
She has come under attack from some sides as being a crank, off on a campaign trying to rescue her daughter. Then you have her receiving a COURAGE AWARD from a group for the same work on a national level, with the photo below.
You have a retired State Trooper, Stephen Pickering, testifying in favor of Handrahan’s position at the Hearing in the courtroom yesterday. You can read his very extensive Affidavit below.
We have the college Newspaper article below, which lends even more credibility to Dr. Handrahan.
Regardless of her critics comments many people we consult with come to think, where there’s smoke, there may be a forest fire. We’ll be updating this case as it evolves.
We’ve heard about and seen some strange case actions by lawyers and judges but this one seems to be in a class by itself. You’re deluding yourself if you think this is the exception. This is happening all over the state. Remember the Sheriff in Washington County turning domestic abusers loose because he couldn’t get a judge to work more than 25 hours per week.
There’s a movement starting in Maine to have a line of T-Shirts that commemorate what you can expect in the Maine Court system. Here’s the first rendition.
Copy write falmouthtoday.me 2013
A SEA OF GARBAGE
OF MY OWN BELIEF
I personally would like to thank Michael Doyle. Who has opened up the general public to what is going on right in front of them. There are reasons why mainstream TV. Is labeled, “programming”! Michael is allowing people like me and cases like Doug's. To open the eyes of the people of Maine to see what their elected officials are up to or how they are taking complete advantage of their contracts they signed. Then Justice Kennedy, tossing the Constitutions out the window, as she step through the corporation’s door and shut out reality. Thanks Michael without you and this web site we would have a tougher time holding them accountable in the Court of Public's Opinion.
Not only has the Federal Government become dysfunctional. With Members of Congress trying to create laws to circumvent our Constitution. One after another bills are being introduced, trying to dismantle it. That attitude has slithered down the trail to each state. Maine is “NO” exception to Tyranny!
It is happening at the state level as well. Maine gets an F Rating in Corruption and a D+ in Judicial
Accountability from the “State Integrity Investigation”. The State of Maine ranking fourth out of the fifty states on the list. WHY? Easy! Pay attention to these two cases and see how the Justices and Plaintiff's or individuals work together to violate another’s Civil Rights! This is just the tip of the iceberg. Officials abuse the legal process and their authority under the color of law. This is done after signing an oath to protect and defend the Constitutions. The very document these officials have the nerve enough to violate.
This is a sham case filed with “unclean hands.” This Court took over with no Jurisdiction to tamper with a default on a Commercial Lien. The court, also validating a case being filed with no evidence to support it. This has been allowed by the courts and Justices involved. These individuals are using their power Under the Color of Law to control through fraudulent suppression on an individual’s Civil Rights. Why has this happened?
1.) they do not like Pro-Se Litigants. Because they take food off their plate”.
2.) They do not like it when they cannot control a situation or do not have the jurisdiction to control it.
3.) The fraud started and was allowed from the beginning and it just steam rolled. Liken to trying to plug a crack in a dam like Tom Thumb!
There have been so many lies and fraud committed and allowed that they illegally made their own justice system in the middle of the Maine Judicial System. It is called, “legislating from the bench.” A big mistake! No one is immune to prosecution Under the Color of Law!
These issues are from two separate cases but they are intertwined. What started as a private matter was then criminally instigated by Richard, Louis, and Frederick Going and the plaintiff’s? They moved from probate to civil court working with each other. I know because I have seen it and witnessed it. See my affidavit. These individuals all-teaming up to violate Doug Going's Civil Rights via coercion. This corruption having been committed multiple times in different legal domains.
CV-2008-347 and the Estate of Sarah G. Going
CAROL LOVEJOY! Head clerk of Probate of York County Maine: Stonewalled Doug Going by hardly ever answering any communications with Doug. Conveniently lost evidence to the
D.A.'s Office for possible prosecution. See e-mail from Carol herself. Fraudulently listed documents being docketed but with no documents that can be physically shown, (see listed documents) Carol also will not provide her Oath of Affirmation.
DONNA BAILEY: Ex Judge of York County Probate: Doug's ex lawyer, who he asked to recuse herself multiple times.
Donna allowed the cover up of a legal document.
Donna allowed fraud in her courtroom.
Donna aloud the illegal transfer of land while an open court case was still going on.
Appointed Louis Going to Executor after she knew he was involved in RE-11-165 and had given a fraudulent e-mail maliciously and vindictively for his cousin to use in the in her case.
She knew that this court hearing was a defense for the Illegal Summary Judgment in RE-11-165. Donna, allowed Fred Going to fraudulently transfer assets during the Probate Case. These transactions were transferred on the record.
Donna appointed Fred Co-Executor of the will. After on record, “He committed covering up a legal document for 2.75 years”!
Donna conspired with Jens Bergen in RE-11-165 and with the case. Asking Jens “If he was ok with Mr. Frederick Clay Going” to recuse himself from the Conservator of the Estate of Sarah G. Going, so that he would be immune to prosecution. The list goes on!
Donna will not answer any e-mails or produce her Oath of Affirmation.
MAINE CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING BOARD
Robert Parker: Fred Going admitted to bribing the Assistant Attorney General to be able to keep his license in the amount of $15,000.00. Robert would not let Doug appeal on different grounds.
CUSO MORTGAGE: Allowed: Monies to Laprel and Smith. Either did not check the YCRD or just plain ignored all the inconsistencies. Did not check or ignored the fact that Sarah Going was alive and on the Deed. Included the land Richard’s land only and used and incorporated that in their decision to loan monies to individuals with no clear title.
Justice O'Neil: Ruled on Motions and dismissed a motion hearing asking Doug Going to make a more tangible effort to request the documents during discovers? Then recused him due to conflict of interest because of knowing Fred Going, Doug's brother. It took 6 months for him to figure out he knew Fred Going and it was, “Conflict Of Interest”? He should have called Justice Kennedy and asked her? She allows and or does not believe conflict of interest exists in this case. Even though this is the reason why Justice O'Neil recused himself! Not to mention he said during the beginning of the hearing before recusing himself,” He just had a chance to review the case the night before”? Ok!!!!!!
Justice Brennan: Allowed this case to be filed with Unclean Hands. Violated Doug's Civil Rights, Due Process and Procedural Due Process: By putting in an order 5 months before Discovery Deadlines, “that anything i.e. documents, not produced by the date in Jan” “would be inadmissible in court”!
Justice Thomas Humphrey: He took RE-11-165 off a trial list and as can be seen gave it to Justice Wheeler at first! The same order, just rewritten. This order was for one specific Justice, (Violation of Due Process). This case scheduled on the courts time? This is a violation of procedural Due Process and Due Process. This is also a violation of Civil Rights (Life and Liberty). This was done to try and hold Doug in slavery. So they could use whatever time they felt or that Jens Bergen felt comfortable to violate the defendant's rights. Doug cannot go on vacation or leave the state for any length of time. Sort of like illegal probation. If he does leave and they find out, they can pounce, with an emergency hearing.
Humphrey also moved the hearing to Androscoggin County done under Doug's protest. They also fraudulently ignored proof of jurisdiction. They allowed multiple motions by the Defendant to build up over 16 months all to be denied at one 45 minute hearing. He is the string puller behind this. He specifically assigned Justice Kennedy free reign to violate Doug's Civil Rights.
Bernstein and Shur: MAINE ACCOUNTACY BOARD: This firm could be sued for slander etc. They made false statements. Look at the document, “Stating: Doug Going's violent and aggressive behavior towards Fred Going etc. Then they turn around and help try and redact John G. Lemoine, Esq and David G. Lemoine? Redact the names via request? These two drew up the will! This firm assisted in covering up a legal document. Travis Brennan etc. Also Fred Going's lawyers for the Maine Accountancy Board
Bernstein and Shur: Kathryn D.Wallace Esq. Fred Going's Probate Lawyer. .
Bernstein and Shur: RE-11-165 Richard Smith: Jens Bergen's and the plaintiff's expert witness?
Conflict of Interest is not a reason to dismiss Re-11-165 or rather, “this case”? In any other court in any
State, this would be considered huge conflicts of interest. Justice O'Neil gets to recuse himself after 6 months on the case and ruling on a motion Recusing due to conflict of interest but this is not a reason to dismiss Richard Smith’s testimony? This is a huge conflict of interest!
Justice Mary Gay Kennedy: Overruled the Supreme Court of the United States of America: See Rich V. Braxton. States, “She had and has no jurisdiction” when she states, “she does have it”. Justice Kennedy claims this after multiple demands of proof of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction has to be proven when questioned! She would not grant Doug Citizenship in Maine at first (did not have any clue to the statutes)? Then when she did she ah hummed it. Still has not signed an order and or granted his request for trial which has to be granted by Maine Statutes. Kept repeating, “I don't know what you are talking about”! She stated this multiple times. Told him that this case was not going to be dropped and Justice Humphrey’s handpicked her? She destroyed her oath to the people of Maine, by violating her contract with them. She trampled all over the Constitutions. Not allowing them in her court. Not allowing the U.C.C. or Secretary of State’s Office, Commercial Law, Common Law?
Who was behind it? Well, Jens Bergen, the Plaintiff's and Justice Humphrey. Multiple clear blatant violations were dismissed and the violations are backed up by case law. All dismissed on one day 16 months after filing. No other motion hearings. No Case Management, only the one hearing. One e-mail done in belief and opinion of a conversation with no doctors notes, no other evidence to hold the Defendant hostage. Involuntary servitude has been abolished Justice Kennedy! Doug’s Civil Rights have been violated over 120 Civil Rights Violations. By law each day and each one is violating Doug's Civil Rights. During the motion hearing on Dec 2012, Justice Kennedy kept saying, “I don't know what you are talking about” over and over again to Doug? She was trying to ignore him and would not debate the fact there were no laws at all against what he did. Why because on recording she would be caught!
Richard O. Going: Was removed from the house via restraining order. Due to abuse of Sarah. Had a living vendetta against his son Doug for helping Sarah Going out. Richard sold his interest in the property without Sarah Going's knowledge and or consent. Then Richard used the monies from Laprel to finance Kevin Grimes, for both him and the siblings in probate, (Conflict of Interest). This was all allowed. Helped illegally evict his son on the street! He tampered with coercion with all involved. One of the ringmasters behind all the Civil Rights violations.
COERCION CVV-2008-347 AND ESTATE OF
Jens Bergen: One of the most corrupt lawyers I have ever seen. He kept stating, the Constitution’s, Common Law, Commercial Law, U.C.C. And Main Rules etc. “Are laws outside the legal realm”?
Also was caught soliciting a prostitute during this case! He fraudulently filed this sham case with unclean hands. He tampered with CV-2008-347 to have the Judge Dismiss Doug as executor and appoint Fred and Louis so they would deny Doug his wages! This was one of Doug's Defenses in the illegal RE-111-165. Purposely worked with Donna Bailey to do this! Fact, I heard Donna Bailey ask Jens Bergen, “If he was ok with Fred recusing himself from the Estate of as Conservator”?
Alayna Laprel and Neil Smith: Their actions speak for what they have done! The story and the time line, say it all. Alayna admitted to signing on loans for herself as a Vice President of Ocean National Bank. The land transactions were not clean. Allowed to have free reign! Using trickery she bought Richard's interest to finance his Divorce Hearing and the 3 siblings Probate Lawyer (Kevin Grimes). Tampering in The Estate Of! Filing the 2nd sham part of the case with an e-mail done in belief of an opinion of a conversation from Doug to his brother! No other evidence brought forth during Discovery!
Clerks of RE-11-165: See Jarrod Croker's Affidavit! Also Emily told Doug, “They did not have appeal forms at the court”! They kept stonewalling and plain lying to the defendant over and over again. See: Affidavit of Jarrod Crocker.
My name is Tom Renner. I was a friend of Sarah Going and now a friend of Doug Going's. I have been witness to the events back from 2005 to present. I know of the issues between Sarah Going, her husband Richard and Alayna Laprel the niece and plaintiff in this development. She and her husband are at the core of all this and commissioned an attorney who cares nothing about the Constitution(s) and or only billable hours! He will do whatever crime it takes to please his client. In this case I saw him tamper with the Probate Case CV-2008-0347: Which I signed an affidavit too and which Justice Kennedy blatantly ignored. Her siding, it was a separate case and needed to be decided in Probate? This was one defense’s for Doug Going for the Plaintiff's illegal summary judgment (RE-11-165) done without proof of jurisdiction and actually on paper. Fraud! Ignoring and over ruling the Supreme Court of the U.S.
This first began years ago. What Doug was and is trying to do? Get justice for the civil rights violations that have occurred. By all the repetitive fraud and violations of Civil Rights etc. All coerced by Bergen the Plaintiffs, family members and public officials.
Back in the 1980's Alayna started acquiring land around her, and then was given a piece of property by her mother Esther Laprel. Who is Sister to Richard O. and neighbors of, Alayna and Richard concocted a Condo scheme. To combine all the relatives property and build condo's on: See: Alayn's YCRD listed and mortgages i.e. times and dates. Also see Affidavit of Michael Shellene!
A.) Look at Real Estate Transactions and Affidavit of Michael Shellene!
Condo Plans and Survey's
LAPREL ALAYNA J
GOING RICHARD O
GOING RICHARD O
(The siblings in a Probate Hearing: Were allowed by Donna Bailey to voice and lie to the court and on record. “That they never did any such thing”? Above: Surveys and plans registered at the registry of deeds. Donna only aloud questions that, “she thought was pertinent”, to the case! Not what really was pertinent? Louis admitted knowing that Richard had paid for their attorney! The same Kevin Grimes. When asked if was aware that Doug had asked numerous times. Who paid for the lawyer? He said Richard of course and smiled! No sanctions, nothing! Lou stated on record: “he knew nothing of the will”! I find that hard to believe? He was the executor of Sarah's will!
This was without Sarah Going knowledge and permission: So Frederick and Louis Going being the good Samaritans and or family that they were took Mrs. Going and Richard to a friend that drew up a will. Making Louis the executor of Sarah's and Frederick the Executor of Richards. Both Fred and Lou are the next in line on each will. Then next in line was Judy then Doug. All the while knowing that they would be able manipulates this to their interest later if needed. Many of times Fred, Louis and Sarah and Doug asked Judy to give her a copy and each avoided the subject. Constantly this came up and they refused to give her and or Doug a copy!
During this time, Richard started to push the idea to sell the land to Alayna to Sarah. Mrs. Going wanted no part of it. Alayna then had numerous run ins with Sarah about Alayna wanting the land! Sarah was determined not to let Richard sell anything! Multiple times I listened to this. During this time Mr. Richard Going became very abusive. Frederick, Louis and Judy all turned their backs in denial and condoning it.
Doug, on the other hand stepped up to the plate. He came down from Portland on a daily basis making sure his mother was ok. Many times I accompanied him and heard Richard screaming at the top of his lungs. Then when we came in, he would immediately quiet down like the coward he is, then leave. Sarah’s doctor documents the abuse in 42 pages of abuse. It got so bad that Sarah asked Doug to take her to the court and had Mr. Going tossed out. Doug took care of his mom. This basically brought him into bankruptcy. If Sarah knew her children's intentions, she would have created a new will and given Doug everything. The family tried every illegal scheme in the book admitted in legal documents to get Richard back onto his land to enable the abuse to Sarah. Sick!
About a year later Richard, then sold his interest in the property to Alayna Laprel. She mortgaged her property to Cuso Mortgage (in the documentation it says, “Land formerly of Richard O. Going” Sarah never signed any paper work. Richard used this to obtain Kevin Grimes. The siblings also obtained Kevin Grimes in Probate Court (Severe Conflict Of Interest). Kevin Paid for by Richard O. Going. This was done all without Sarah's knowledge or approval of her Power Of Attorney (Doug) or her lawyer.
The siblings then criminally restrained Sarah. They tried to have a secret Probate Hearing. Not notifying Doug Going. Doug caught them by showing up! He had nothing to hide. They forced Doug to have a handpicked court interviewer from DHS for court, to see who was best capable of taking care of Sarah. The Court advocate of course sided with Kevin Grimes. Who was actually tossed off the case! Louis Going on record admitted to Justice Nadeau. “That Doug Going did nothing wrong”!
These family members besides Doug have no morals at all. It took all of them to gang up on their own flesh and blood to strike a deal. Where Sarah went to live with Judy and Doug stayed on the premises until Sarah passed. Very strange how Alayna Laprel only ever attended one family reunion ever! Then appeared at all the Divorce Hearings and Probate Hearings concerned with Sarah's welfare.
Sarah eventually passed on Feb 21, 2009. Shortly after (Douglas was illegally tossed out having to live in his van with 2 dogs for a week without food) by Alayna Laprel owner of the property via sign! By the Probate Records she was not the owner? This was not registered until a year later. The probate court had knowledge of all this and did nothing. Carol Lovejoy admitted to losing a complaint. On record, still no will 2 years later. In fact, Donna Bailey allowed Fred Going to file false conservator papers.
Instead of filing a Civil Law Suit, Doug filed a Commercial Affidavit. And Common Law is used as a Non Judicial Lien. The Supreme Court backs this up to the U.S. of America. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 349: (“The ability to place a lien upon a man's property, such as to temporarily deprive him of its beneficial use, without any judicial determination of probable cause dates back not only to medieval England gut also to Roman times.” Also supported by Randone v. Appellate 1971 Cal Supreme and State of Idaho v. Horicuchi: “Towards the general government...If (the people's) rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. Page 3....
Alayna found out about the lien. Even though, Doug afforded them all Due Process. She then filed a law suit (RE-11-165) against Doug. Not just to try and have the liens removed but for slander, defamation, slander of title with malicious intent. This was and is all based on one e-mail done in Doug’s own belief. He was talking to legal entities that deal in Mortgage Fraud. The conversation was sent to Louis Going in confidence out of concern? Even knowing this Lou was made executor of the will by (Donna Bailey (Probate). This was Doug’s ex -lawyer. Doug asked her to remove herself multiple times. Donna ignored Doug)! Fraud!
They say they have other signed and unsigned letters? Unsigned? Not brought forth. No evidence.
Jens was criminally smart on why he split the case. Explanation further!
At the same time Alayna filed the fraudulent sham case with unclean hands. Allowed to do this and later agreed to by Justice Kennedy, “That this was not a reason to dismiss this case”?
The probate case was an extension of CV-2008-034. This was filed to try and recoup monies that made Doug personally go bankrupt. Wages that he spent taking care of his mother from the Estate. Helping his mother while his siblings did nothing and previously had this in mind by the way the will was drawn up?
Fred helping Lou and Lou helping Fred: Both helping Jens Bergen, Plaintiff's, and Richard Going. Both Justices, along with Donna Bailey, Carol Lovejoy, Kevin Grimes to coercively, violate Doug’s Civil Rights via Fraud Upon The Court, Conflict Of Interest, Breach Of Fiduciary Duties, all over and over again. Making Doug ride a bicycle without a seat! Total Tyranny!
A full collectivist take over, all the way down to Justice Kennedy, Humphrey's and Jens Bergen. Jens kept quoting: ”Laws outside the legal realm”? The Constitution(s), U.C.C., Common Law, Commercial Law are now outside the legal realm? That is TREASON! Legislating from the bench and over riding the Supreme Court!
During this time the will still was not brought forth! Fred had economic, personal and emotional connection and reason not to bring it forward. He was blatantly involved with the suppression of a legal document. Under Maine Statutes is a crime.
Doug had to force Fred to bring the will forward by a complaint to the Accountancy Board. Of course they found nothing wrong? Not even covering up a legal document, which is a crime. To repeat! Fred had vested interest, financially, socially and emotionally. Fred admitted in front of me” that he had to bribe! Bob Perkins the Assistant Attorney General by paying $15,000.00 to keep his license in accounting”. Basically having them overlook that he concealed a will for 2.75 years, in hopes that probate would run out. His firm of Bernstein and Shur blatantly helped cover it up. See Bernstein and Shur: Asking to have the names redacted so Doug would not find out the names of who drew the Will up. The same firm where Jens's expert witness came from. The same firm that represented Fred in York County Probate Court! I am sure Bernstein and Shur is aware of the helping suppress a legal document or the names of the lawyers who drew it up? Not to mention the ethics on Conflict Of Interest and the slanderous letter to the board! No proof! Violating Doug's Civil Rights again!
Justice Kennedy says, ”She cannot see any conflict of interests”
Eventually Doug brought the Will forward after Fred brought it to Probate. Donna Bailey refused to recuse herself, then turned around and denied Doug conservator of the Will. Knowing Louis Going took that e-mail and gave it to Alayna Laprel so she could incorporate it in the lawsuit against Doug and used it personally with malicious intent. Allowing Fred Going who hid the will for 2.75 years and committed crimes! Cv-2008-0347: Estate of Sarah G. Going: Is still on the dockets!
As, can be seen above the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land in the real world. In Justice Humphrey, Kennedy, Jens Bergen, Plaintiff's, Carol Love Joy, The 3 Siblings, Richard Going, Kevin Grimes and Donna Bailey. It only exists for them. In the mind of these public officials and by their actions, both Constitutions do not exist at all! Look at the blatant violations below. These are just some below:
1.) Filing a sham case with unclean hands. Knowledge and approval of all involved!
2.) Justice Brennan violating Due Process and Procedural Due Process of the defendant. Cutting of Discovery Time!
3.) Justice O'Neil: Received the case in Jan. Then waited till April Ruled on a Motion denying the Defendant. Then had a hearing to recuse himself due to just having supposedly viewed the case the night before. Conflict of Interest. He knew Fred Going? Should he recuse himself before ruling on a Motion to deny Doug his rights?
4.) Given to Justice Humphrey for reschedule on a trial list!
5.) Justice Humphrey's takes it off the trial list gives it specifically to one Justice for no one else to get involved? On their time schedule not to interrupt their schedule? Elitist status? Violation of Due Process of Law and Procedural Due Process!
6.) Justice Wheeler recuses herself.
7.) Justice Humphrey resend the exact same order 2 county’s up. With Doug's objection!
8.) Justice Kennedy: Both Justice’s! Humphrey and Kennedy were demanded Proof of Jurisdiction. Ignored Doug's Notices of Demand and Demand of clarification of order? Whose Merits were to be used? The Plaintiff's, whose Notice of Demand to define what laws, statutes codes. U.S. Constitution, Maine Constitution, U.C.C., Common Law, Commercial Law. All recognized by the State Of Maine. Were these going to be recognized and allowed in her court? Ignored in dismissal of motion.
9.) Numerous motions 16 months’ worth, all set for one day 45 min hearing. All denied!
Let’s rip apart the insane dismissals of legitimate motions!
Around 100 cases cited by the Defendant and 2 by the Plaintiff’s in support of their sham filing with unclean hands:
Request for production of documents, if not brought forth motion to dismiss. So they ignore every motion of Doug Going's. No other evidence was brought forth supporting the e-mails during discovery. All done by feeling. Doug, over and over again requested documents to support. Then deny him dismissal.
Motion for Dismissal Count II, slander of title, and Count IV, slander”. Doug pointed out no other evidence brought forth in support. All Justice Kennedy has to say, “Attempts to impeach” “Does not address the claim”!
Motion for dismissal of Count II, slander of title, and Count IV, slander! Again Doug points out no evidence brought forth! Justice Kennedy's answer, “Attempts to impeach the affiants” Does not address the complaint” Doug's motion was backed by cases, laws etc. Now a person can get convicted on feeling!
Proof of Jurisdiction: Justice Kennedy (specially assigned to Androscoggin) clearly has jurisdiction over the present case because the people and land are all located there, and due to the court's general jurisdiction. Well Justice Kennedy: This is fraudulent! You and your court and Humphrey do not have jurisdiction. Rich v. Braxton: U.S. Supreme Court.
Another point: Fraud upon the court, breach of fiduciary duty, reckless and malicious intent to the defendant's due process of law, conflict of interest are not grounds to dismiss this complaint” Each one separate.
What Justice Kennedy fails to understand is that she signed a contract with the people of Maine to protect and defend both Constitutions. What she fails to selectively ignore are individual’s civil liberties! How? Well sure Ms. Laprel chose not to answer and Affidavit of Truth. That was her right! There are no laws saying what Doug Going did is illegal! No statutes, No codes! Why Justice Kennedy would deny someone right to find out what laws, code, statutes and or kinds of law permitted in her court was deviant to say the least! Let me educate Justice Kennedy and Justice Humphrey in the school of real life! Not corporate judicial activism, i.e. corruption!
Both Justices took oaths to the Constitutions: Hence look: Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
You both maliciously and diabolically violated his rights over and over again. So why did Jens criminally split the case and allow one e-mail with no other evidence left hanging and Justice Kennedy ignoring notices of demand to sign the order she granted for citizenship.
1.) To enslave Doug Going. So he has no free movement. They could bring it to a hearing, (not a trial). Without him being around. If he went on vacation.
She would grant the Plaintiff's monetary costs, lawyers’ fees etc. Without any evidence besides the e-mail. Nothing else was brought to discovery.
2.) To control Doug Going vindictively. Abuse his Civil Rights and teach him a lesson.
3.) What better way to get back at someone and use it in criminal racketeering!
Justice Kennedy a Yale Graduate and Justice Humphrey along with Jens Bergen are so smart that they have committed felonies together. Now they have put the State of Maine at risk!
So blatantly out in the open. During the illegal motion hearing which Justice Kennedy received the Notice of Demand for Declaration of Citizenship and request for trial? She ruled in favor of an illegal summary judgment for the Plaintiff's and ruled against valid motions for the Defendant. She agreed verbally by ah humming multiple times about Mr. Going being a citizen but never put her signature on it. Justice Kennedy also asked Mr. Going, “What he wanted”? Doug replied, “to drop the case”! Justice Kennedy replied? “Well, that is not going to happen”! “It is a process in obtaining jurisdiction” Quote! Well, Justice Kennedy not in the real legal world it is not! You have to prove it. You and Justice Humphrey violated the Defendant's Civil Rights over 100 times trying to gain control illegally. I wonder how the Yale Law review would react if this was sent to them.
In a long run story short. What Bergen, Justice Kennedy and Humphrey's are doing is taking advantage of their positions to make illegal activity legal or make justification of illegal activity through their positions. Doug included his objections to this insanity in all his motions. Justice Kennedy just put her hand out with her delusional programming that he never touched on any of the Plaintiff's complaints?
You cannot find for the Plaintiffs on all those fraudulent counts, because of one e-mail done in belief and opinion of conversations with legal entities about possible crimes of the Plaintiff, without any other corroborating evidence. Where are the doctor's diagnosis’s, signed letters, (not unsigned). No other proof during discovery. What Doug did is legally find a way to exercise his right as a citizen. These justices with the persistence of Bergen could find no way legally to beat him as a Pro-se. So what they did is go the illegal route and back it up by their positions. Total abuse of power done under the color of law.
Corruption through coercion has been proven and is blatantly evident in this case. What makes this an eye sore are the facts that they will not dismiss the case and recuse the Declaration, “there to be no liens on the property”. Because, the Plaintiff's used an invalid order with Cuso Mortgage to refinance, the mortgage company is in coercion with this case as well. Got to get the money to pay legal fees and court costs somehow!!!!
Bergen, Justices Humphrey and Kennedy
Involuntary Servitude is against the law. Done under the color of law is a felony. What you three have done is illegal, immoral and indecent as human beings. How can, these individuals look themselves in the mirror each day?
These individuals feel like they are untouchable. No one will hold them accountable. When you have brother in governing the Judicial Review Board or the Board of Overseers of The Bar! It is like the fox guarding the chicken coup, then any kind of change to make it appear legit. They remove the fox and add a wolf!
Like the old saying goes, for Bergen, Kennedy, Humphrey, Grimes, Bailey, Love Joy, Laprel, Smith the siblings and Richard Going. “You may have won the battle but you have not won the war”! Your victory will be short lived! You forget! There are other avenues legally that are not corrupt and actually will cost each individual. Not maliciously but for justice! What they did was try and take a private matter into the public. Take it “ILLEGALLY”! Not legally! Your right to defend yourself was done through paid illegal corruption through coercion on the State Level.
Again written of my personal belief and opinion
Backed up by the facts and evidence.
LETS BREAK DOWN JUSTICE KENNEDY‘S ORDER
THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLIS ANY LEGAL BASIS FOR ALTERING
THE ELEPHANT IS IN THE ROOM BUT JUSTICE KENNEDY DOES NOT SEE IT?
Rich v. Braxton, 39 L. Ed. 1022, 158 U.S. 3755, specifically denied the power of authority of a judge to invoke Equity Jurisdiction and procedures to remove Common Law Liens or similar “Clouds of Title”. The Common Law jury being the trier of the facts, and not a Commissioner/Magistrate or chancellor in equity, and the usurpation and or abrogation of the providence of the Jury and the Right of the litigants may not be assumed even if the preponderance of evidence displays the lien to be void or voidable. The Equity still may not proceed, or enter judgment thereon until the moving party comes before he court with “Clean Hands“, based upon the “Clean Hands Doctrine” and ‚‘‘Power of Estoppel”, and should it appear from the Pleadings that the acts of the party evoking Equity Jurisdiction have been unconscionable, oppressive, iniquitous, or based upon omissions or mistake in agreement, misrepresentation, concealment, or any unfairness, will stay the arm of the court, and cause the case/controversy and Party claiming some benefit from such acts to be turned over to a Court ‚ “At Law” of prosecution, trial, judgment , and punishment according to the law.
Justice’s Kennedy and Humphrey Note: It is further established that judges may be enjoined from interfering with a Citizens Rights, and includes individuals wrongfully exercising the vested Power and authority of the Office of Judge, and or Magistrate who commit unlawful acts under color of office (Duke vs. State of Texas, 327 F. Supp. 1218. Yates vs. Village of Hoffman Estates Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757: Vickery vs. Dunivan, 279 P. 2 D 853 (1955): 18 U.S. C.s. 241m 242m 645912m 1001) (Also see Constitution for the states united in America, Preamble, Article I, Section 8, Clause 9, Article IV, Section 2. 10th Amendment, Commercial Law, Common Law, Bill of Attainder“.
So why does it deny a Judge or Justice the right to legally tamper with a lien? Justice Kennedy just answered herself with all her denials and orders signed in favor for the plaintiffs? All Summary Processes have the weakness of being subject to bribery, kickbacks, fraud of process, conspiracy to defraud, and alter ego misuse! See lets take more of a look below. Then we will wrap it up!
Neither the Court nor the Plaintiff has brought the Defendant’s status as citizen or resident into question, nor does it have any bearing on this litigation. There is no legal basis for Defendant’s concern that he will be treated as a, “second class citizen” in the course of this litigation. This lawsuit is no the place to do that!
See Justice Kennedy has a nice way of violating rights by pawning it off on,‘‘ No legal basis“? I would say over 127 broken rules, rules procedures and civil rights violations are grounds enough for concern. Overriding the Supreme Court to tamper with liens by interfering with citizen‘s rights i.e. Doug’s Rights are huge concerns. Both Justice’s forget signing their Oaths? There were two documents these two have violated?
If you are declared a State Citizen you have full Constitutional Rights. Which she does not want Doug to have? A U.S. Citizen is the equivalent of being a resident in he District of Colombia (Washington DC isn’t a state) and has NO Constitutional Rights, only civil rights! That is why Justice Kennedy is adamant about not granting Doug his State Declaration. Check both Oaths out? They are Citizens of Both! See: United States v Anthony, U.S. Cruikshank, Crosse v. Bd. Of Sup of Elections.
They want to fraudulently violate Doug’s Constitutional and Civil Rights with out him being able to do anything about it. Judicial Persecution. Very disturbing.
See, it has not been Alanyna Laprel and Neil Smith v. Doug Going. Justice Humphrey found his tool to use? Not an administrator of the court. It has been? Laprel, Smith, Bergen and Justice Kennedy v. Doug Going. Her job is the Oath she took. Not to violate it and or use it to violate other’s rights. She already agreed he was a Maine Citizen and will not sign his order and or grant a trial, which she has to by the Maine Statutes. Why won’t she do this? Because any jury would see she and Justice Humphrey have continually violated Mr. Going’s rights over and over again. Fraudulent Order. See Justice Kennedy just messed with the Truth Seeking Process.
A Judge CAN NOT interfere with, tamper with, or in any way modify testimony without disintegrating the truth – seeking process in his or her sacred profession and destroying the fabric of his or her own occupation. To do so abrogates the First Amendment, which was established to protect truth. It is committing professional suicide, as well as inviting countless civil and criminal repercussions.
ANY judge, who tampers with testimony, deposition, or affidavit, is a threat to the Commercial Peace and Dignity of the County, State and United States of America, thereby violating the laws of all those political subdivisions and acting in the nature of a foreign enemy agent (MIXED WAR), justifiably subject to penalties of the Big T word.
In my own true belief
And opinion of all the facts included.
Bizarre is how we would describe what fell into our lap today. Wills, lawyers, families, judges, lawsuits, claims, and counterclaims, make us think about what Ben Franklin once said. “You can’t tell a man’s character until you divide an estate with him.”
When our source went to the court to get a copy of the docket (the complete record of all filings in a case) the clerk’s response was a surprise even to them. It seems the docket has been removed, deleted, or transferred off the court system statewide. The clerk is reported to have said that the docket has been especially assigned to a judge, hopefully one that hasn’t been recused from the case already.
We haven’t heard of a docket, any docket, being removed from the court system locally or statewide. We wonder what was said in the conference in the judge’s chambers. It’s NOT likely to be good for Doug.
This report in in the Bangor Daily News pretty much tells the story but we have some questions.
As in most government wrong doing it’s not just the one caught and exposed. We wondered how many other times she did this and wasn’t caught? Then we wondered how many other prosecutors have this same level of misconduct? Then we wondered what are the judges doing about this while they’re sitting there watching one defendant after another being denied a fair trial?
Aren’t judges in the courtroom to assure a fair and just application of the Law? Or, are they in the courtroom only as an assistant to the prosecutor to assure a conviction for something, anything.
By Bill Trotter, BDN Staff
Follow on Twitter Find on Facebook
Posted May 13, 2013, at 4:56 p.m.
ELLSWORTH, Maine — A board that oversees the conduct of licensed attorneys in the state of Maine has filed a complaint about a Hancock County prosecutor with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
The complaint, or information, from the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar reiterates the findings from last December by a grievance panel of the board that Hancock County Assistant District Attorney Mary Kellett violated multiple bar rules when prosecuting a Gouldsboro man in 2008 and 2009.
The panel recommended that Kellett be suspended — the first time board officials could recall such a recommendation against a prosecutor in Maine, according to Jacqueline Rogers, executive director of the board.
According to staff at the Law Court clerk’s office in Portland, Justice Ellen Gorman will review the complaint and make a final determination of whether Kellett violated rules of the Maine Bar when she prosecuted former Gouldsboro resident Vladek Filler in 2008 and 2009.
Kellett has until May 20 to file a response to the board’s complaint, which was filed in late April, staff at the Law Court clerk’s office indicated last week. A date for Gorman to hear oral arguments about Filler’s allegations against the prosecutor has not yet been set.
Kellett and her boss, Hancock County District Attorney Carletta “Dee” Bassano, repeatedly have declined to comment on Filler’s claims against the prosecutor.
The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar held a grievance hearing last fall against Kellett after Filler, who had been charged with but eventually was acquitted of gross sexual assault, filed a complaint with the board over how Kellett had prosecuted his case. As a result of that hearing, a grievance panel of the board issued a report late last year indicating that it believed Kellett violated seven bar rules and should be suspended. The board has not recommended a specific length of time of suspension for Kellett.
Kellett is accused of violating rules of the Maine Bar with statements she made during her closing arguments at Filler’s first trial, in January 2009, and by withholding evidence and interfering with subpoenas issued by Filler’s defense attorney for that trial.
Filler argued, and the board’s grievance panel agreed, that Kellett made misleading and inappropriate statements about evidence and the burden of proof in her closing arguments to the jury.
The panel also agreed with Filler’s assertion that prior to the January 2009 trial, Kellett inadequately responded to requests from Filler’s defense attorney for documents and other investigative materials and that she improperly advised an Ellsworth police officer not to comply with a subpoena from Filler’s attorney, despite a 2008 court ruling that ordered Kellett to hand over the requested materials to the defense attorney.
Filler was found guilty at his first trial of raping his then-wife in December 2005 and April 2007 at the Gouldsboro home they shared but, after he was granted a re-trial, he was acquitted of charges that he had sexually assaulted her.
Filler has contended since the rape accusations first were made that his marriage was deteriorating and that his wife, from whom he is now divorced, had fabricated the allegations in order to win custody of their two sons. After his first trial, Filler was granted custody of their sons, who are both minors, in the couple’s subsequent divorce. The boys live with their father in suburban Atlanta.
At his second trial, prosecuted by First District Attorney Paul Cavanaugh instead of by Kellett, Filler was found guilty of misdemeanor assault and later was sentenced to serve 21 days in jail.
How does one judge pop up on our radar screen twice in very unfavorable conditions both times, and why? We would think acting as if he were still a prosecutor
in a PFH hearing where he didn’t require the Plaintiff to provide the Defendant ANY discovery so the heaping piles of PERJURY could be disputed then and there, would have taught him a well deserved lesson, that being, you can no longer screw people in the near privacy of your court room, and no one accept the hapless defendant will ever know about it.
Guess what? When you get way outside the legal boundaries, even for judges in Maine, people take note.
We have a little knowledge of how child support in Maine is suppose to work. There is a State chart. You add both parents income together and that determines
the child support for one minor child, more for two, more for three, etc. and that total child support is divided based upon the percentage of each parent’s income
to the total couple’s income. A simple example would be a husband that earns $40,000 and a wife that earns $60,000 per year and the wife without custody would pay the husband with custody 60% of the monthly total on the chart. Or, you might think so in most courts in Maine.
Then you have a judge in Cumberland County, former ADA for York County, named Jeffery Moskowitz. The email below intimates that Judge Moskowitz seems
to be setting different rules then what we believe are part of the Laws of the State of Maine. To whit, when your income goes down your child support magically goes up.
Is there something wrong with this or did the system completely flip when we were busy watching another judge doing something equally wrong in another courtroom?
From: Lori Handrahan [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 12:19 PM
Subject: Cumberland County Court
Dear Asst. Director Kelly,
I’ve asked for this countless times these past two years from DOJ and the FBI: Cumberland County Family Court, Portland Maine must have their records ceased
by the FBI and investigate for racketeering as the FBI did in Lackawanna Pennsylvania.
Here is what happened in my so-called “child support hearing” in Cumberland County Court yesterday. Tell me if this even remotely resembles the law:
1. Feb 2011 I lost my salary of $105,000 when AED went out of business and I lost my job.
2. Judge Moskowitz then for two years ignored motions filed to change my child supported-refused to hold a hearing.
3. I was unemployed for 6 months then I was re-employed by AU Sept 2011 with a new salary of $48,000
4. Moskowitz REFUSED to change my child support from $1,700 per month to $300/$500 per month.
5. At one point Moskowitz told my lawyer Judy Potter in chambers he would change it if I give up sole custody of my daughter.
6. Now we were told by the court yesterday that we cannot change it because we cannot prove change of circumstances?
7. However, while saying the court couldn’t change child support to much lower, legal amount, the court said they would INCREASE my child support without needing to “prove change of circumstance” unless my lawyer withdrew her entire motion and went quietly away?
Lori Handrahan, Ph.D.
From: Marsha Traill [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:25 AM
To: 'Lori Handrahan'
Update from yesterday. The Magistrate would not let me enter any evidence about your employment.
A motion to modify has to allege and prove a “substantial change in circumstances” since the last hearing. The Magistrate said that under the statute, you had to prove that there had been a substantial change of circumstances since last February’s hearing but because Moscowitz ruled at that time and denied your motion to modify child support (because you did not appear), the evidence that you worked at AU and earned $48000 had been heard already and ruled on.
Therefore your employment at AU and your lower earnings were NOT a substantial change in circumstance. Igor did testify about daycare cost, his earnings and health insurance cost. When it became clear that the result of this hearing, if pursued, was going to result in HIGHER child support not lower because I could not overcome the burden of showing a change of circumstances since last February, I had to withdraw the Motion to Modify without prejudice, It can be brought again when you have NO income, since that is about as substantial a change in circumstance as you can get
Most people in Maine never come before a judge in their entire lives. Even the lead footed amongst us can pay the speeding ticket by mail and spend the next three years being really careful not to get another speeding ticket until they clear the points from the ticket they just paid from their record.
For the tiny minority that has the misfortune to go before a Maine judge that not only allows blatant perjury, but makes a Defendant defend himself without the benefit of any Discovery from the opposition, you might find it hard to imagine this could even happen in America. Well, welcome to Judge Moskowitz’s Court
in Cumberland County. We note when our reporter was recently in J. Moskowitz’s court to video record a hearing for a Motion for Contempt involving a child custody case, a routine approval to record was denied by J. Moskowitz, just at the beginning of the hearing as he dismissively set the form aside when he was reminded of the form’s presence by the Court Officer.
You might think that aberrant conduct would be unique to only one judge. Not according to the BDN story loaded below. It seems from sources all over the State we have a bench loaded with renegade jurists that just make it up as they go along. These judges come up with decisions out of left field not based upon any law
that they can reference from the bench when a party to their shenanigans asks for the reference. They just use this catchall phrase, “It’s a general principal of law.” This actually means I have no clue what I’m doing, but I’m making this ruling because I want to make this ruling, and have a nice day.
Now we have a Sheriff in Washington County that thinks he needs to sue the judges to make them do their job. God forbid a political hack that is appointed to a judgeship for life (we know they are reappointed periodically but we haven’t heard of one NOT being reappointed) actually does the job they’re paid to do for the residents of the State of Maine. The judges can’t find time in their ‘busy’ docket schedule to arraign prisoners, so the Sheriff has to turn them loose. Pointing to two examples in the article, it makes us think this.
Prisoners? Who cares how many prisoners we have to let go? Maybe they’ll shoot a wife or a pregnant girlfriend and move up to the dangerous list of prisoners
and get in front of a judge.
By Sharon Kiley Mack, BDN Staff
Posted April 26, 2013, at 3:56 p.m.
Last modified April 26, 2013, at 5 p.m.
MACHIAS, Maine — Washington County Sheriff Donnie Smith said Friday that if the judges serving the county’s District Court don’t start arraigning prisoners in a timely fashion, he plans to sue the court system.
Smith said the state has reduced District Court hours in Machias to just three afternoons a week, and these requirements are forcing him to release some prisoners when they can’t be brought before a judge within 48 hours, as required by state law. He explained that these are pretrial prisoners who are unable to make bail or are being held without bail pending arraignment.
“We will not wait until a victim is killed because a judge thinks they are more important than the victim,” he said Friday.
Smith raised the issue of a potential lawsuit in an email sent at 11:35 p.m. Thursday to numerous news outlets, including the Bangor Daily News. Reached Friday afternoon, Mary Ann Lynch, Maine’s director of court information, said she had also seen a copy of that email but that it came as a complete surprise to her that Smith was having difficulty.
“These hours are not a change,” Lynch said. “This has been our practice statewide. There has not been a problem anywhere else in the state. We were also not aware there was a problem in Washington County.”
Lynch and Smith said that on the three days that District Court arraignments are held, paperwork must be submitted by 11:30 a.m. and arraignments are held at 1 p.m. Smith said one prisoner had to be released because the paperwork was seven minutes late.
Lynch said that Smith does have another option. If it appears a prisoner will be released because the 48-hour rule is going to expire, a justice of the peace can hold a probable cause hearing to extend that limit.
“There is a justice of the peace across the street from the sheriff’s office in Machias,” she said.
Lynch said her office will be contacting Smith and asking him to provide details of his problems.
“We’ll be happy to look into any of his concerns,” she said.
Smith said Friday morning that earlier this week he was forced for the fourth time this month to release a person charged with domestic violence because “the sitting judges are refusing to do the arraignments on these suspects. Tuesday we had to release for the fourth time a [domestic violence] subject because a judge flatly refused to bring the subject before them. This was not the fault of the district attorney or the arresting agency.”
Smith has been critical over the past several weeks of his inability to get prisoners before a judge in a timely fashion. In a recent interview about a proposed $12 million expansion of the Washington County courthouse, which would include two new district courtrooms, Smith said more courtrooms are not needed because the existing district courtroom is often empty because no judge is assigned.
“We aren’t using what we have now,” he said, calling the courtroom schedule “a management crisis.”
Judge John V. Romei, who presides over District Court in Machias and is set to retire next month, would not comment on the scheduling situation.
Smith said that he sometimes is able to use videoconferencing with judges from courts in Calais and Ellsworth to arraign prisoners. But again, he has trouble getting those done during the regular scheduled court hours on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
“I have held people here [in jail] longer waiting for trial than they would have served if they pled guilty,” he said.
Smith also said that he has been forced to hold mentally ill prisoners for three to four months after conviction before getting them in front of a judge to seek transfers for treatment at a mental health facility.
Yet Smith contends that it is the pretrial prisoners that cause him the greatest difficulty.
“Last month I had 25 out of 40 prisoners that I was holding pre-trial and no one was able to get into a courtroom,” he said. “We are theoretically holding innocent people.”
The backlog of cases is so dire, he said, that he was recently forced because of the 48-hour limit to release six pretrial prisoners — and he considers dangerous at least two who were being held on domestic violence charges.
“One held a gun to his girlfriend’s head and pulled the trigger. There was no round in the chamber,” he said. “And I had to let them go. Another Tased his pregnant girlfriend. Another was charged with six counts of stalking and I couldn’t get him in front of a judge.”
Releasing a fourth prisoner on Tuesday was Smith’s last straw, he said.
“I have contacted the governor’s office and am waiting for response,” Smith said Friday. “If need be the sheriff’s office will take action against the court.”
Adrienne Bennett, the governor’s press secretary, said Friday she would check with Gov. Paul LePage’s office staff to see if he had been notified.
Meanwhile, Smith said he intends to bring all pretrial prisoners scheduled for arraignment on any given day into the courtroom “and we’ll stand there with them until the judge notices us. I understand the logistics of this but the system is the only protection that the victim has.”
The letter below is the best-constructed FOAA request letter we’ve read to date. Nathan Poore, Falmouth Town Manager, should print out these pages and keep them handy on his desk for daily consulting.
Nathan, stop foot dragging, overcharging, and denying first hour free for replies. Take the time you spend driving around the state doing talks for the MMA on how to thwart FOAA requesters and spend those hours that you waste preparing, driving round trip, and speaking, and use it to ANSWER FOAA requests. We’re still waiting for your complete and accurate answer to your latest speech in Bridgton. Your slide show had bullet points and we want the names of the people you based those points on. For example: who pretended to be a reporter, who was the ambulance chaser, and all the other unanswered questions?
To remind everyone, Cape, Cumberland, and Yarmouth answer almost immediately, usually the same day, and FREE. They don’t phony up the time it takes to push the print button on the keyboard and pretend it takes three hours. We say this because the last two requests were $45 each and three hours each.
When the two guys run from Key Bank with a bag full of cash and jump into the family minivan to make their escape, it only takes a few hours before the cops show up at the address where the records indicate the owner lives. The cops come in while they’re dividing up the $2,871 from the paper bag. What follows is where the robbers make a crucial mistake. They take a plea deal at the kitchen table and accept a seven-year bid at the prison in Warren.
What happens when a lawyer and judge get accused/caught in wrongdoing? All they have to do is simply swear they didn’t do it, and never would do it. The lawyer has to deny he wrote the letter, and the judge referred to in the letter fixing a case, has to deny he talked to the lawyer. How easy can it be to get by with anything if your word is taken as truth, over the evidence? Or, bag of money? What bag of money?
The bank robbers should have told the cops that someone stole the minivan, brought it back, and threw a bag of cash through the kitchen window. Hey, that type of defense works for the lawyer and the judge, why not for the bank robbers.
Read the lawyer and judge letter below. Geez, talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop. Here we have the fox owning the whole shooting match. The judges on the review panel on whether or not a judge did anything wrong, are themselves serial offenders, and they might have got their appointment to the bench by having a cozy relationship with DeTroy who helps pick Federal Judges, why not pull some strings for State judges also. Consider this item, in the Kennebec County District Court, on one day one woman judge is married to a partner of DeTroy and the other woman judge was a partner in Berman & Simmons when David Van Dyke was hired. Conflicts, fair trial, fair hearing, oh sure, step right up. Be sure to leave any rights you may think you have at the door. This is why Maine gets a D+ for ethical courts in national ratings.
For you civilians, non-lawyers and judges, reading this and think we’re crying over split milk, read the letter below from another ‘happy’ customer of the Maine Court system. Recall how the famous Ms. Eee, Counsel for the Overseers of the Bar, dismisses complaints because the complainant has feelings about the lawyers and judges perpetrating the misconduct. Could those well-placed feelings consist of disgust, anger and outrage?
What’s interesting is the same misconduct by the same lawyers, judges, and Bar Counsel against many different victims. Could all these people filing complaints be wrong or could a handful of lawyers, judges, and Bar Overseers’ lawyers be wrong?
Check the players on page 11 of a recent printout of what happens at the Board of Lawyer Protection, er, Board of Bar Overseers. What a joke that name is on the citizens of Maine.
On this page you see Scott Liberty, Michael Liberty, Cassandra Liberty, and even another lawyer complaining about Jeffery Bennett, Esq. These complaints are running over 1,000 days and some of them over 2,000 days. Here are some tips on how to read the report. BC is Bar Counsel. There is a BC named Eee, that’s not a misprint, her last name is really Eee. She bases her rejections for complaints by stating her belief that the complainant’s “feelings” are the cause of the complaint. If there ever was a person who needed a checkup from the neck up, it’s Ms. Eee and her weird obsession with feelings versus the facts of a complaint. What kind of issue does Ms. Eee have that “feelings” are the dominant reason she rejects many complaints? Wouldn’t you love to hear her account of what happened in her childhood when she’s at the shrink’s office?
When you think you’ve seen and heard everything under the sun something like this falls into your lap. First thing that we discussed around the office at FTM today was, if this cocaine sniffing chest cutter was married, maybe his wife would have performed all the services provided by the escort service ladies for an extra bump of $7,500 per month in her allowance. The next thought was if he’s divorced, as the saying goes, I don’t pay them for sex, I pay them to get up and go home after the date is over.
Then we settled down to analyze the totality of a doctor, any doctor, paying $7,500 per month for eight years for sex, or a total of $720,000. We thought dinner and a movie was the going rate in the Greater Portland area for a happy ending with a doctor and the chance to be Mrs. Doctor someday. With this kind of money on the table we would think it would be something only a lawyer could afford or would want to spend for some time with a professional of a similar bent.
Then we thought about the COCAINE use. Everyone’s in an uproar about Lance Armstrong and a host of other professional athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs. Who cares what overpaid jocks put in their bodies? What we should focus on is what doctors have swirling around in their blood stream as it surges through their brains while they stand over us with a scalpel in their shaking hands.
Here’re some questions to ask the next guy cutting on you before you go under.
Did you have a fight with your wife in the last 48 hours?
Did you drink any alcohol last night?
Did you get a good night’s sleep?
Are you now high on coke?
Better for you to ask before you wind up dead, than to have the same questions asked at the M&M conference (Mortality and Morbidly) after your funeral.
PORTLAND, Maine — The Massachusetts man who owns Perfect Pleasures Escort Service in Windham, Maine, was sentenced Friday in U.S. District Court to 15 months in federal prison for making threatening phone calls to a former client.
In addition to prison time, U.S. District Judge George Z. Singal sentenced Nicholas Enfanto, 53, of Saugus, Mass., to three years of supervised release and ordered him to pay a $1,000 fine.
He pleaded guilty in December to one count of sending interstate communications with the intent to extort.
By pleading guilty, Enfanto admitted to making threatening telephone calls to a former client. The client is described in court documents as a Falmouth cardiologist who patronized Enfanto’s business and spent about $7,500 a month with Perfect Pleasures. The physician is not named but referred to as “J.D.” in all court documents.
Perfect Pleasures provides exotic dancers for individuals and private parties. Enfanto keeps one-third of the fees paid to dancers, who are considered independent contractors. What the dancers were paid is not outlined in court documents and not listed on the company’s website.
The investigation that led to Enfanto’s arrest on May 4 in Massachusetts began when Falmouth police on April 26 received a complaint from the man identified as J.D. in court documents. J.D. said that he had used Enfanto’s escort service for at least eight years.
The man told police that he never paid the escorts directly but mailed personal checks to Enfanto’s Saugus, Mass., address, according to court documents. On Feb. 6, 2012, Enfanto sent J.D. a text message on his cellphone that said he owed the owner of the escort service $100,000.
“Enfanto claimed that J.D. had contacted women from the escort service without going through Enfanto, and thus owed Enfanto for the lost business,” said the affidavit filed in federal court in Portland. “Enfanto made it clear that J.D. would be harmed if J.D. did not pay the money.
“J.D. admitted to me that he had met with escorts from the Perfect Pleasures Service without arranging the meetings through Enfanto, as the escorts had approached him on their own. They sold drugs to J.D. and told J.D. they no longer worked for Enfanto.”
Enfanto ended the business relationship with J.D. after one of the dancers who worked for Enfanto as an independent contractor admitted she had procured cocaine for the doctor.
“Mr. Enfanto informed Dr. John Doe that he knew of Dr. John Doe booking the Perfect Pleasures dancers directly, without going through the agency, and that he believed that Dr. John Doe owed the agency back agency fees for the previous eight years,” said the trial brief filed by Enfanto’s attorney, Peter Rodway of Portland. “Upon being confronted about booking the dancers directly, Dr. John Doe admitted to Mr. Enfanto that he had, in fact, been booking the dancers directly and acknowledged that he owed the agency money.”
J.D. arranged to pay Enfanto $250 per week on the debt by sending him checks or making cash deposits directly into Enfanto’s bank account through a branch in Maine, according to the prosecution version of events to which Enfanto pleaded guilty.
“Enfanto never made threats to expose J.D.’s use of cocaine or escorts to anyone; he only threatened physical violence if J.D. did not pay Enfanto,” the complaint said.
J.D. decided to contact police after Enfanto raised his weekly payment to $400 and the threats intensified, according to court documents.
Enfanto admitted to investigators that he became angry with J.D. when the doctor refused to pay him, according to court documents. The defendant also admitted that he had threatened to kill J.D.
Enfanto faced up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Under the prevailing federal sentencing guidelines, he faced between 41 and 51 months in federal prison, Rodway said Friday in an email.
The U.S. attorney’s office recommended a sentence between 24 and 30 months, the defense attorney said. Rodway recommended his client be sentenced to five months or time served.
In his sentencing memorandum, Rodway argued that Enfanto suffered from a serious mental defect due in part to concussions he suffered as a youth athlete. Conditions of Enfanto’s supervised release include mental health counseling, according to court documents.
When a lawyer is ordered into a Superior Court Judge’s Chambers’ it can be bad news for any Defendant.
A few years ago a lawyer was listening to Judge Roland Cole’s assessment of what the lawyer was going to submit for testimony and evidence at a hearing to vacate a guilty plea. What was Judge Cole’s first comment? “Save it for the Law Court.” Translation: Judge Cole had already made up his mind before he heard one word of testimony or seen one item of evidence. The lawyer had the presence of mind to say, “I’m going to have to ask you to recuse yourself from this case.”
This is where the danger of revenge by a Judge can take hold against any Defendant. At one point Judge Cole had to come into Judge Nancy Mills’ courtroom and declare on the record that he had in fact recused himself from this case. That lasted until the next two steps in the related elements of the case. Judge Cole heard an attack on a bankruptcy launched by Assistant Attorney General Michael Colleran. Cole ruled in favor of Colleran’s argument to sidestep the protection of bankruptcy and made a creative attachment of a fine or a fee of over $200,000 for whichever one that could survive an appeal, plus, of course the normal amount of interest every year until the end of the earth.
Next, when the Defendant sued David Van Dyke Esq. who reenters the case once again? Judge Cole, of course, and dismisses the suit against Van Dyke. A fair hearing is a fantasy that the average person presumes comes to the person in Court, not very likely in this State.
Years ago our source went to Pierce Atwood to hire the firm to sue a debtor to collect around $3,800. The client was assigned to Rick Lawrence, a Harvard Law grad, to pursue the case. Rick filed suit and 90 days later the client got his first statement for a little over $88. This seemed pretty reasonable until five months later when the second statement arrived for $8,900. Remember the client wanted to collect $3,800.
So, the client meets with partner Ralph Lancaster and said something like $8,900 to chase $3,800 and we aren’t anywhere near a court date? Lancaster cancels the statement and refers the client to another lawyer in a different firm. Now you might think Rick was up against a lawyer from Yale Law, you know the really hard school to get into, you’d be wrong. Rick was up against an 8th grade dropout that spoke English as a second language. Not exactly Yale Law, but good enough to hold off the Harvard Law grad.
Where oh where, could Rick be working now in the legal arena? Where else, he’s a District Court Judge in Lewiston. Nothing but the best and the brightest on the Bench in Maine!
A few years ago one of our reporters had occasion to be at the Federal Court’s Clerk’s window to ask a question. You know how reporters are. He looks down
and there’s a package addressed to Judge Gene Carter, a long serving, and semi-retired federal judge, living in sunny Florida. There, for all the world to see is his address and phone number on the package, something that is usually kept top secret.
So our reporter jotted down the phone number and called the Judge at his home in the Buena Vista Condo Phase 4, on Rt. A1A, Del Mar Largo, FL (not his real address). His wife answered the phone and wanted to know who he was and what he was calling about? When the reporter told the judge how unsecure his
address and phone number was at the Courthouse the Judge asked for the details.
A few days later the U.S. Marshalls were tracking the reporter all over Falmouth and corralled him on a side street off of Ledgewood. They wanted to know why
the reporter didn’t report the breach to the Marshalls on duty? Our reporter asked, “Do you mean the same ones that caused the problem and not let the Judge
know what was happening behind his back 1,500 miles away?” The Marshalls shrugged, got in their Blazer, and drove off.
Our reporter had some positive history with Carter and felt he owed him one. In a follow up letter to Carter our reporter related the whole story about the behind the scenes uprising against Carter to force him off the Bench for good, and the one lawyer that was against the mutiny. We don’t know if Carter ever got the letter, it was addressed to him at the Courthouse here in Portland; maybe the Marshalls intercepted it and put it through the shredder.
This story is an example of why LawlessAmerica.Com was started. The facts, as bad as they are, are far from unusual in Maine, or for that matter anywhere in America. A common thread however runs through most of the cases we have reported on thus far. Certain lawyers’ names keep appearing over and over, and not
in a positive manner.
We have the tag team of DeTroy and Berne. If you get tied into these two watch out, you’re going to prison for something, anything they can come up with, that
fits the situation. Here’s a sample of their legal work. When the young man from Edgecomb killed his girlfriend in Waterville and two days later killed his father at
the family home this is what his mother stated in a phone interview:
“Lenny Sharron of Lewiston/Auburn wanted $100,000 for each of the two trials. I couldn’t afford that so DeTroy and Berne said they would do the two trials for $50,000 each. I went forward with them and DeTroy was the lead lawyer.”
When her son was convicted she was told by DeTroy her son would receive, a sentence in the ten-year range. A non-lawyer adviser told her the sentence would be at least 30 years. The actual sentence was 40 years. The mother was advised by the same adviser not to pay DeTroy to file the appeal as it would fail and she
would lose even more of her retirement money. The mother ignored that advice also, and wasted more money with DeTroy, instead of having her indigent son get
a court appointed lawyer for free, and get the same results.
In the divorce case below David Van Dyke makes an appearance however briefly, and surprisingly doesn’t seem to be able to do more damage than what is being done by Jeff Bennett, Berne, and DeTroy. The real star of this nightmare on wheels for Scott is Jeff Bennett’s ability to use the legal system to punish Scott and reward the wife/client Bennett had a crush on, according to her own children.
It also seems that some judges do what the lawyers want them to do with no regard for the rights of the defendants and these same judges’ names appear over and over in various cases. We wonder did some of these judges get their appointments to the bench by these very same lawyers, sitting on the nominating committees? Do these judges owe their lifetime incomes followed by their lifetime pensions, and after death payments to their spouses for their lifetimes, to these same lawyers?
The complaint to the Bar Association is loaded below. It’s worth reading so you will understand that the Bar is for the protection of lawyers from clients’
complaints and not for the protection of clients from the misconduct of lawyers.
Years ago a woman was walking from one building to another on the Gorham campus of U.S.M. as people are want to do from time to time. Suddenly she was dragged out of the nighttime and raped.
After the trip to the hospital and rape counseling she went to Daniel Lilley, as the source reports, to be compensated for this horrific act of violence against her
body, her mind, and her spirit.
Judge Mills ruled that U.S.M. couldn’t be held liable for women being raped while walking across the Gorham campus at night. Daniel Lilley appealed that
decision to the Law Court. The Maine Supreme Court reversed Judge Mills decision and remanded the case for trial.
The insurance company quietly settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money, and it was established that U.S.M. was, from that point forward, actually responsible for keeping women from being raped on the Gorham campus, no thanks to Judge Mills.
When Steven fell at Sugarloaf years ago his injuries were serious and life changing. After he got out of the hospital and into his wheelchair he found the divorce papers waiting to be served on him. Then the real horror show started.
His wife went to Peter DeTroy, Esq. for her divorce and Steven not knowing what to do next due to a T.B.I. from his crash, asked DeTroy whom would he recommend that he get to represent him. DeTroy sent him to his friend Richard Berne, Esq. It appears from our source that DeTroy and Berne jointly
decided the best outcome for DeTroy’s client would be for Steven to give up his Military Pension, his airline pilot’s pension, and his IRA account to his
ex-wife to be. This would make him indigent and eligible for a government paid semi-private room in a nursing home full of elderly, near death residents in Minnesota. This is where DeTroy and Berne thought it would be a good place for Steven to live out the next 30 or 40 years of his life, only 1,500 miles away from his family of three young children, where he likely would see them rarely, if ever again.
Enter Steven’s mother, who upon learning of this travesty, sold her house in Massachusetts, bought a ranch on the flats that Steven could roll in and out of, and watch his children grow up. A happy ending, you judge for yourself?
Ladies if you really want to take your future ex-husband, we recommend the firm of Dewey, Screwem, and Howe. Also known as the tag team of DeTroy & Berne. Boy, with a lawyer like Berne on your team, your retainer is well spent for your wife’s benefit.
“You can tell who the criminals are in a courtroom, they’re the ones in suits and robes.” Anon.
We’re going to start this new section off with what we will call the ironic item of the week. We have a fax from Ralph Dyer Esq. a recently retired/disciplined lawyer form Falmouth. This describes a five-point plan from Peter (DeTroy) of Norman, Hanson, and DeTroy. Letter “c” tells the recipient to tell the clients “the investment is working.” This was sent three months after both Dyer and DeTroy claimed to have verbally said the opposite.
The irony is, guess who chairs a committee to select the next Federal District Court Judge for Maine? That would be Peter DeTroy. With DeTroy counseling his client to tell investors that the Ponzi scheme is working, what could possibly go wrong with him picking a judge, who will in turn owe DeTroy his very job and pension? The only thing to figure out now is who will DeTroy’s client be, that DeTroy will use that judge relationship, to put in jail, it might be you?
Below is the fax and PPH’s notice dated 2-6-13.