Falmouth Today News | Mike Doyle


July 11, 2014
By Editor:

On July 9, 2014 at 08:30 in courtroom #9 our reporter appeared under a Power of Attorney (P.O.A.) for the Defendant homeowner.

Upon J. Mills entering the courtroom our reporter invoked Rule 76H; which allows a party in interest to record the hearing for their own use.  No comment was made from the bench and the hearing was recorded pursuant to the stated Rule.  J. Mills proceeded to establish the record by identifying the docket number, the Bank Plaintiff, Defendant homeowner, and the ex-husband of the Defendant.

J. Mills then inquired as to whether our reporter was licensed to practice law in Maine, he wasn’t.  She went on to cite two cases in Maine where P.O.A.’s were specifically barred from representing another person unless the P.O.A. in question was also a licensed lawyer.

Our reporter then asked permission from the Court to make enquiry of the Court.  Permission was granted and this exchange ensued:

Reporter:  Are you related to Janet Mills?

Mills:  Yes I am.

R:  In what way?

M:  She’s my sister-in-law.

Our reporter then stated he had a Motion to Recuse J. Mills due to Attorney General Janet Mills unusual interview in the Portland Press Herald regarding the Defendant homeowner’s divorce and child custody case, which forced the foreclosure case.  J. Mills stated she took Judicial Notice of the Motion to Recuse, and did in fact recuse herself at that point.

In the discussion about resetting the hearing date our reporter asked the Court for four weeks so the Defendant would have time to vet the next judge for conflicts.  J. Mills said that the clerk’s office is good about notifications and she would let them handle it.  Our reporter then made a Motion on the record for a period of four weeks and J. Mills stated he wasn’t allowed to make any motions.  To which he replied that he was only trying “to prevent Reversible Error by the Court.”




June 17, 2014
By Editor:

Not only does every Judge in Maine have a vested interest in suppressing this suit that seeks to gain access to a public library, The Cleaves Library, in a public building, in the Cumberland County Courthouse, in order to protect all judges from the scrutiny that this T.V. commercial might bring upon their very own conduct in their own courtrooms.

Such overreaching conflict of interest is prohibited in neighboring NH but is ignored here in Maine.  Can there be any justice in Maine when something this blatant is done?  What are judges doing everyday in their courtrooms that is even more hideous?  We may never be allowed to find out.

Here follows Judge Wheeler’s Order:

“The court finds this action is frivolous and is not brought in good faith Rule 91(b).  The Cleaves Library is a private nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation and limits patrons to reading, researching, copying, and other appropriate activities associated with the use of a law library.  These associated activities do not include video recording in the library.  JW”

One of the items that is NOT allowed by the Rules states:
“Bathe, wash clothes, or clean any other items which are not normally associated with Library use.”

Apparently it’s necessary to make sure that lawyers (patrons) don’t strip down and wash up in the library.  This rule just might have its source in the fact that lawyers use to strip down and wash up in the library.  Strangely enough video recording is NOT mentioned but phones and computers are.

STATE OF MAINE                                                                     SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss.                                                                 DOCKET NO. CV-14-268   

Michael Doyle, Falmouth, Maine


                           v.                                                                           MOTION FOR  
Cleaves Library, Portland, Maine                        
Nancy Rabasca, Librarian


1. This Court has erred in its decision to deny to proceed without fees.

2.  The Plaintiff is sincere in this filing and believes that the Defendant has violated the three Rights of Access, Press, and Speech.  Plaintiff reminds the Court that permission was granted by Defendant Rabasca and then withdrawn arbitrarily.  Exhibit A attached to the Complaint verifies this violation from the Defendant herself.  The scale and scope of this Complaint is in the Public Interest and as such, should proceed without fees so the public will be protected from further violations of these laws by Defendants.
3.  The Court also errs in the description of the limitations set by the Defendant on the use of the Library within the Rules and Bylaws set by the Defendant, in its own words.  If any limitations can be extracted from the attached Rules and Bylaws, they were waived by Defendant Rabasca in her email when she withdrew it in a prejudicial violation of the law.  There does not exist any mention of any prohibition of video recording within the Rules and Bylaws, copies of which are attached.

4.  In order to maintain the Defendant’s “private nonprofit 501(c)(3)”status, access must be granted to the public.  Preventing this suit to go forward will verify that access was denied and Plaintiff will file with the IRS to vacate the 501(c)(3) exemptions.  If Plaintiff is successful this Court will be directly responsible for the removal of that tax status.

5.  This Court should either recuse itself from this decision or reverse itself for the following reason:  This access to the Library was for the sole purpose of making a video recording for a T.V. commercial to seek other victims of misconduct and abuse by a fellow judge in the Family Court System and several Guardian Ad Litems by name and other G.A.Ls. in general.  It is no longer possible for this type of misconduct to be kept secret from the public and attempts to prevent making a commercial only serves to emphasize the less than honorable position this Court has assume in this denial.  Recusal is required when the Court has an interest in the proceedings.  Every Judge in this State has an abiding interest in preventing access to the library in order to prevent the commercial from being made in the preferred format by the Plaintiff.  This Court may benefit directly from preventing this commercial from being made or indirectly from preventing a complainant from knowing about this investigation that would directly implicate this Court in misconduct and/or abuse of office.  A failure by this Court to reverse this decision will constitute abuse of office and an effort to protect itself from inquiry to any potential misconduct and abuse of its own.

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of June 2014.

Michael Doyle
3 Shady Lane
Falmouth, ME 04105

STATE OF MAINE                                  SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss.                                DOCKET NO. CV-14-268    

Michael Doyle, Falmouth, Maine


                         v.                                      COMPLAINT   
Cleaves Library, Portland, Maine                         
Nancy Rabasca, Librarian

1. Plaintiff is a resident of Falmouth, Maine

2. On June 2, 2014 Plaintiff was given permission to return to the Cleaves Library to video record in front of a bookshelf of law books next to a computer workstation by Defendant Rabasca without qualification.

3.  On June 2, 2014, Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff falsely claiming that the previous “yes” earlier in the day was ‘provisional’.  Rabasca goes on to state, “…and have concluded that it is not appropriate…” Exhibit A

4. DENIAL OF ACCESS: The Defendant Rabasca “concluded” is a personal decision unsupported by any By Laws or Rules controlling the use of the Defendant Cleaves Library.  If there had been any Rule, By Law, or any other controlling document prohibiting Plaintiff from video recording within the Cleaves Library, Defendant Rabasca had waived that prohibition when she gave permission to Plaintiff to video record in the Library the morning of June 2nd.  Under Article II, Section 3, of the By Laws covers Nondiscrimination that states, “Shall operate on a non-profit basis and shall conduct all activities in a non-discriminatory manner.”  Plaintiff was discriminated against by both Defendants based solely on Rabasca’s conclusion without legal supporting documentation.  

Under Article III, Section 7, Public Access without Membership states, “Any member of the public may use the Library subject to the terms of the policies and rules of the Library.”  Plaintiff’s Right to Access to a public facility was violated by Defendants.

5.  VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH: Under Policies and Rules, IV. covering Patron Conduct, the entire List of Conduct has no mention prohibiting video recording.  Plaintiff cannot be barred from doing something that is not barred by this section on the whim of Defendant Rabasca.  This constitutes the violation of Plaintiff’s Right to Free Speech.

6. VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: Plaintiff, as member of the Press, was denied access to the library in order to stymie an investigation into the same legal community that is represented by Defendant Cleaves Library.  In reality Defendants, as a group, are suppressing the Free Speech of the Plaintiff in order to hinder the reporting of allegations of misconduct and abusive conduct by certain judges and lawyers of the Maine Bar.  
In addition the above violations contravene the requirements of the 501(c) 3 status of the Cleaves Library. Such hindrances violates Plaintiff’s Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Access.

Court’s Order.

That Defendant be ordered to allow Plaintiff to video record in the Library at a time and place of his choosing during normal work hours.

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of June 2014.

Michael Doyle
3 Shady Lane
Falmouth, ME 04105




June 5, 2014
By Editor:

Some things are so bizarre you wouldn’t even imagine that someone could make it up to begin with.

FTM wanted to do a TV commercial with a backdrop of law books.  Where better to go than, wait for it, A LAW LIBRARY?  Little did we think that the Cleaves Law Library controlled by Nancy Rabasca, Librarian would give permission and then withdraw it based on her ‘conclusion’.  (See her email below.)  We’ve made a conclusion about her also and we might have to see if a judge agrees with us.

That would be enough of an attack on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press but lo and behold it got topped at, where else, the University of Maine School of Law, where Christine Helper, acting library director, orders us out of the Library.  At the Law School, if you’re lucky enough to get permission to stand in front of a bookshelf full of law books, the staff can terminate any taping if they DEEM IT INAPPROPRIATE!  Censorship in a Law School Library, we told you, you can’t make this up.

Maybe the Law School is teaching from a new Constitution, you know the one from the Communist Manifesto, where Freedom of Speech is limited to the ruling class.  It makes you wonder what kind of lawyers will come out of this factory, and even much worse, what kind of judges these lawyers will become at some point.

You know how you eat the Bill of Rights?  One bite at a time served at the buffet located in the Law School Library!

From: info@cleaves.org
To: seller99@msn.com
Subject: Videotaping in Cleaves
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 14:11:17 -0400
Hello Mr. Doyle,
I understand that I gave you a provisional “yes” to film in the stacks at Cleaves but I went to your website (http://www.falmouthtoday.me/judgesandlawyrs.py  )  and have concluded that it is not appropriate for the Library to be involved in your enterprise.
I have spoken to Jon LeRoyer about my decision.  Cleaves Law Library is a separate entity and therefore does not fall under any Judicial Administrative orders.
I am sorry and I thank you for your cooperation.
--Nancy Rabasca, Librarian
Cleaves Law Library
Cumberland County Courthouse
142 Federal Street
Portland, Maine  04101
Tel: 207-773-9712
Fax: 1-866-894-9612
Email: info@cleaves.org
URL:  www.cleaves.org

From: seller99@msn.com
To: info@cleaves.org; brenda.kielty@maine.gov
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 22:25:51 -0400

I take issue with your email barring me from video recording in the Library.  I don't believe your pay grade reaches the point where you have the authority to bar a member of the public from entering and recording video inside the stacks.  I quote from the site: "...access to such information to the general public..." "...allows Library patrons to make full use of the Library's resources..." "...to share legal resources...and resources for the benefit of all..."  The Library is housed in a public building and is open to the public during normal business hours.  If you proceed with your current position I will commence litigation against you personally and the Library organization and its 501 (c) 3 status.

Provide copies of all documents that authorizes you to bar anyone, including the press, from utilizing the Library as long as the Rules are observed based solely on any conclusions you may have made.

This is a FOAA request pursuant to the current FOAA law of Maine.  You have five business days to file your answer.

Michael Doyle


> From: Michael Doyle <seller99@msn.com>
> Date: June 3, 2014 at 5:30:51 PM EDT
> To: "christine.hepler@maine.edu" <christine.hepler@maine.edu>
> Christine,
> Provide all documents that allows the U. of Maine Law School to violate the above decision. With specific attention to the policy provided to me at the Law School this morning, in hand, by you.
> "The University reserves the right to terminate photographing or videotaping within the Libraries immediately, as deemed appropriate by university staff."
> The library is in the Law School which is a public school, in a public building, and open to the public without any restriction.
> This is a challenge to all the restrictions presented by you. You have five business days to reply. I plan to commence litigation against you personally and the Law School.
> Michael Doyle
> Editor/Reporter
> www.falmouthtoday.me
> 766.6644
> Bob Caswell
> Executive Director, Public Affairs
> P.O. Box 9300
> Portland, Me. 04104-9300
> (207) 780-4200
> caswell@usm.maine.edu

From: caswell@usm.maine.edu
 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:56:25 -0400
Subject: FOAA Request University of Maine School of Law
To: seller99@msn.com

June 5, 2014

Mr. Michael Doyle
Falmouth Today

Dear Mr. Doyle:

I have received your Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) request, reprinted below, and am responding on behalf of the University of Southern Maine and the University of Maine School of Law.

We have no documents that are responsive to your FOAA request regarding allowing the University of Southern Maine or the University of Maine School of Law to violate New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.

We do permit photographs and videotaping in university facilities as long as such activities do not disrupt our academic enterprise or imply university endorsement of a product or service.
I invite you to contact my office at your convenience, with times you would like to take photos or videotape in the library. I will then check in with the library and get back to you with a time that works for both parties.
Please e-mail or feel free to call me at 780-4200. 
Bob Caswell
Executive Director
USM Public Affairs





June 2, 2014
By Editor:

Actually it’s probably a greater chance of being struck by lightning than being reported to the Supreme Court if you’re a judge in Maine.

Since 1990, over 24 years ago, only FIVE JUDGES have been brought before the Maine Supreme Court, (SJC) about one every five years, to answer charges of misconduct.  In other states judges are routinely brought before disciplinary bodies and punished for their misconduct.

Consequently, what it seems that we have in Maine is either a miraculously perfect group of judges that can look back on the last 24 years as pretty easy sailing, or we have essentially NO REAL CONTROL over the misconduct that is rampant in all of the Maine Courts, from reports to us from everywhere in Maine.

How does Maine compare with other New England states?  Below are links to annual reports for several of them.  Using three states annual report, something Maine doesn’t issue, we find the following:

Massachusetts for 2013 there were 132 pending complaints
                                                        77  previous
                                                        55  new for 2013

Connecticut                                       17   pending
                                                        143  received
                                                        160  considered
                                                        132  resolved

New Hampshire                                 78  complaints
                                                        14  held over

In NH the system enforces the “Third degree of relationship” the Code requires that disqualification (by a sitting judge in any case) is mandatory.

How does that work in Maine?  District Court Judge, Keith Powers, ruled against this reporter’s mother on the thinnest technicality, a one day late in delivering documents to the Plaintiff’s lawyer because that lawyer had no street address on their letterhead and seemed to be working the case from her kitchen table, Judge Powers did this while this reporter was writing a number of critical comments about the Judge’s wife Barbara Powers, Superintendent of the Falmouth School System for public discussion.  Two years before Powers did this, a comedy piece was loaded to previous website creating a scenario where Judge Powers would take the same revenge given the chance against the reporter.  Apparently an elderly mother is just as good for Judge Powers.

If somehow a judge’s misconduct survives the gatekeeper
Cabanne Howard’s review it goes to a committee of sitting judges for their perusal.  Only then does it meanders its way up to the SJC for a hearing.  It’s reported to FTM that the very judges that are complained about the most get to rotate through the very seats on the committee that decides if a complaint is so severe they can’t sweep it out the door and down the steps of the broom closet size office where Cabanne Howard holds sway over whether or not citizens get a small modicum of justice.  Getting some justice, it’s right up there with the lottery and a lightning strike.

Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct
2.    Connecticut Judicial Review Council
3.    New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee
4.    Vermont Judicial Conduct Board
5.    Maine Commission on Judicial Responsibility and Disability


May 22, 2014
By Editor:

The email question below was sent to all members of the Legislature.  Some interesting replies attacked the question as arrogant, bullying, unethical, and what are the circumstances.

FTM replied with this counter question, “Are you against beating children with a stick even if you don’t know the circumstances that led up to the beating?”

Several replies focused on the fact they aren’t on the Judiciary Committee and hence couldn’t answer a question about possible misconduct of
Judge Moskowitz and G.A.L. (Guardian Ad Litem) Toby Hollander, Esq.  Apparently, these sworn lawmakers also wouldn’t be able to decide if they saw a bank being robbed, whether that would be wrong because they aren’t a police officer.  Additionally, Sen. Valentino, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, was quoted in a PPH article that her Committee wasn’t charged with oversight of the Courts.

What do some judges and lawyers do when there is ZERO control over their conduct?

You have Judge Moskowitz and Toby Hollander, Esq. assess $7,953 to a divorced woman with three children, one with special needs, living at the federal poverty level.  (See emails below) You have Judge Moskowitz and Liz Stout, Esq. assess a divorced woman with four daughters $8,000 for a one day hearing for legal fees for her ex-husband’s lawyer and threaten her with 90 days in jail if she continues to pick her children up at the bus stop and take them to breakfast or have them sneak over to her house during the week to have supper with her.  As each daughter ages out of control of Judge Moskowitz’s rule of terror they flee their father’s house to live with their mother.  The mother’s part time job provided the four children’s health insurance.  If she’s in jail, no job, no insurance, more kids on MaineCare, more taxes for Mainers, all so Judge Moskowitz can punish, a prior stay at home mother of four girls, to teach her that Moskowitz is the boss.

So, what can be done with Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz, Toby Hollander, Esq., Liz Stout, Esq., David Paris, Esq., and all the other G.A.L.s tormenting the divorcing population of Maine?

FTM expects EVERY member of the Legislature to go on the record.  Either our Members are in favor of screwing about half the adult residents of Maine that will at sometime be divorced, or they are in favor of suspending pending being fired, Judge Moskowitz and every GAL that rides rough shod over the children of improvised parents, improvised by the misconduct of the Family Court and the GALs.

Representative (fill in the name of your Rep) and Senator (fill in the name of your Senator) are you against beating a child with a stick?  Well, Representative or Senator, are you?


From: Michael Doyle [seller99@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 10:08 PM
To: lorihandrahan5@gmail.com; rankin8076@roadrunner.com; Rankin, Helen; rogerreed60@gmail.com; Reed, RepRoger; megan.rochelo@gmail.com; Rotundo, RepMargaret (FWD); Russell, RepDiane; Short, RepStanley; Sirocki, RepHeather; Sipayik@midmaine.com; Soctomah, RepMadonna; stanleyss@pioneercable.net; stuckeyp42@gmail.com; kent23@myfairpoint.net; Theriault, RepCharles (FWD); Theriault, RepCharles; Timberlake, RepJeffrey (FWD); Timberlake, RepJeffrey; oronoryan@gmail.com; Volk, RepAmy; wallace8540@roadrunner.com; Wallace, RepRay; wcw63@aol.com; Weaver, RepWindol; Joan Welsh; Wood, RepStephen; Willette, RepAlexander; Wilson, RepCorey; Winchenbach, RepEllen
Cc: rykersonforkittery@gmail.com; Rykerson, RepDeane; lindafsanborn@gmail.com; Sanborn, Linda; deb.sanderson2010@gmail.com; Sanderson, RepDeborah; saucierforpi@gmail.com; Saxton, RepJeremy; Schneck, RepJohn; Michael Shaw; Shaw, RepMichael; Stuckey, Peter; Treat, RepSharon; Turner, RepBeth (FWD); Turner, RepBeth; Tyler, RepThomas; arthurverow@hotmail.com; replisavilla@hotmail.com; Villa, RepLisa; Volk, RepAmy (FWD); Welsh, RepJoan; rw556@aol.com; alexander.willette@gmail.com; ellenaw12@yahoo.com; Winsor, RepTom (FWD); woodysnavy@aol.com
As a member of the State of Maine Legislature is it proper for Judge Moskowitz to assess a $7,953.00 Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) fee to any woman going through a child custody dispute, that has the same court authority as a child support order?  If you agree that this is a reasonable amount for a GAL fee, that will take this mother of three over six years to pay off at $100/month, for a woman and her children that are living at the federal poverty level, you don't have to reply?

All non-replies will be listed as a yes next to your name.  If you disagree with Judge Moskowitz you MUST reply with a "NO" or a "NEGATIVE".

Michael Doyle



From: RepMadonna.Soctomah@legislature.maine.gov
To: seller99@msn.com
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 19:52:56 +0000

Madonna M. Soctomah
State Representative
Passamaquoddy Tribe
207-853-2985 residence
207-904-7580 cell
207-287-1400 legislative
1-800-423-2900 toll free


Here are the details that are in circulation at this time.  This is only one case.  How many cases like this would it take for you, to demand a suspension of Hollander?


Does Toby Hollander, Esq. have 10 parents paying him $100/month or is it a 1,000 mothers living at the federal poverty level?  How does taking money from parents at this rate help the CHILDREN?   Be a hero to the children and not a water carrier for the GALs.

Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:09 PM
To: "Toby Hollander" <tholland@maine.rr.com>
Cc: "'Mary Frances O'Brien'" <MFOBrien@maine.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Re: June invoice
Dear Mr. Hollander,

I do not understand why the tone of your email (below) is so hostile, accusatory and sarcastic.  Because of this, I cannot even reply.

As the individual appointed by the court to work in XXX best interests, I fail to understand how writing such an email to me is helpful, or intended to foster a spirit of helpfulness to XXX

---------------------------- From: "Toby Hollander" <tholland@maine.rr.com>
Cc: "'Mary Frances O'Brien'" <MFOBrien@maine.rr.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: Re: June invoice

Dear XXX,

For the past nine months, I sent you itemized bills and you paid nothing.  I sent you an itemized bill with the time involved in the motion for contempt, which the Court ordered you to pay directly.  You have paid
nothing.  It seems whether you get an itemized bill or not, you will pay nothing.  So why should I spend more time itemizing your bills, when it will make no difference whatsoever?

During the month of May, I emailed you, Charles, Doug Dubois, Kathy McDade, Judy Potter, Don Noble and XXX.

You note in another email to Tanja that you have insufficient funds to make any payments whatsoever towards my bill. However, in the mail yesterday I received a copy of a notice from your attorney that she has sent the equivalent of one month's rent for your family to order a transcript of
an appeal that will cost your family, collectively, another ten thousand ($10,000)
dollars or so to prosecute with little, in my humble opinion, likelihood of success.  Please start making payments of $100 per month.  At the present level of your bill, that will only take about six years to pay off.


Toby Hollander
Guardian Ad Litem
112 Ludlow Street
Portland, ME 04103
207-775-0722 fax

PS.  I note you did not copy me on the email to XXX regarding a summer program for XXX.  If you would in the first place provide him with specifics when you want him to pay for something for XXX, it would be a lot more
efficient and would avoid the necessity of a back and forth between the two of you; and you could get an answer more promptly.  Please provide him with the specifics of your request.

This may be an attorney client privileged and/or work product privileged communication and/or confidential pursuant to court rules governing the conduct of Guardians ad Litem.  If you have received this email in error,
please contact
(207) 775-0721
From: XXX
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:04 PM
To: Tanja Hollander
Cc: Mary Frances O'Brien

Dear Tanja,

The attached billing for this month lists much email correspondence. I have no knowledge of any of this correspondence . Please be so kind as to list to
whom, and for what purpose email correspondence occurred.
Also, XXX is an adult and has never been part of the divorce
matter. Please remove her name from all correspondence
Thanks. I await a completed itemized bill with names and purpose.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tanja Hollander" <tanjah@maine.rr.com>
To: XXX "Mary Frances O'Brien,Esq." <MFOBrien@maine.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:32 PM
Subject: June invoice

Please find attached your June invoices.  Your current balance due is
$7952.71.  As you are aware the fees of the GAL are in the nature of child
support and can be enforceable by Court Order.  I would like to avoid that,
as it is a waste of both of our time and your money.  Please make arrangements with me immediately to pay the balance due.

Tanja (for Toby)

Tanja Hollander
Assistant to GAL
Toby Hollander, Esq.
112 Ludlow Street
Portland, Maine 04103
207-775-0722 fax



May 15, 2014
By Editor:

Some things you can’t even imagine such as being ordered by a GAL to put your special needs son in a car with a failed
‘home help’ employee, to have him driven somewhere, and treated or questioned or who knows what.  Welcome to Family
Court in Maine run in this case, by Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz.

Below you can read the emails leading up to this nightmare.

Toby, an older balding ponytail wearing hipster/wannabe hippy, lives at 112 Ludlow St. in Portland according to his GAL website. (see photo)  He drives a Suburu festooned with a dozen bumper stickers. (see photo)  A study about bumper stickers stated anything over two indicated a territorial driver that will be aggressive behind the wheel.  What does a dozen stickers indicate?   Perhaps a desire to act like a king, deciding who has a normal life with their children and those he can destroy with the help of Judge Moskowitz.

This is the type of person let loose on the citizens of Maine, both adults and children, by the Courts, and UNSUPERVISED by our Legislature.


Dear Sirs:
I am unable to attend the Hearing on March 28 for much needed GAL reform. I would appreciate your reading the following so that you can understand the havoc, disruption, cruelty and targeted abuse that my children (and as a consequence, I) suffered at the direction of GAL Toby Hollander. I have transcripts of all of the “interviews” that the GAL had will my minor disabled son. I also have the Court transcripts which demonstrate the GAL’s verbal abuse, and threats.
The Judiciary was aware of all that transpired and therefore I do not believe that the Judiciary can monitor GALs. We wouldn’t be in this situation if the oversight were adequate.
I am shaking as I write this. The bulleted list below is the “tip of the iceberg”. Everything that I have written is fully supported by emails (680), Court transcripts, and transcripts of GAL conversations with a minor disabled child.
When I am able, I will send a fully annotated report.

“Who’s Best Interests?”

Our family’s experience with the Court Appointed GAL demonstrates that:
•    State Funds were carelessly wasted at the discretion of the GAL by his Motions and resulting Orders for duplicate evaluations, services, therapies, in direct conflict with the child’s goals established by his 9 member Therapeutic Team.
•    At hearing, The GAL made a Recommendation that the child and his estranged father engage in weekly Reunification Therapy, to be paid for by the mother (who was not employed outside of the home, but instead was caring full time for the disabled child and his disabled Grandfather).
•    This Recommendation was made although the GAL had full knowledge that the weekly sessions could not happen – because the father had taken employment and was living over 1000 miles away.
•    This Recommendation is contained in the Judgment.
•    Consequently, the disabled minor child was required to attend “Reunification Therapy” with a different adult male, a man who was not a therapist, nor a family member. “Therapy took place in a car in an empty parking lot, while being distantly supervised by the GAL (who has no training in child development).
•    This “Therapy” resulted in the child receiving crisis services from CSI 5 times within one month.
•    This “Therapy” resulted in a report of abuse by CSI to DHHS.
•    Although GAL recommendations suggest that the GAL meet with the child throughout proceedings, the GAL did not do this.
•    Instead, the GAL drove up his bill by daily phone conversations and emails with the child’s father.
•    During 4 years of “representation” of my son, the GAL communicated daily with the child’s father (by phone and email) even though neither the GAL, nor the father, saw or communicated with the child whom the GAL was Court Appointed to represent). The constant communication between these two men resulted in GAL billing in excess of $100,000, while the child was living at the Federal Poverty level.
•    Although GAL recommendations require a GAL to assist on obtaining FAPE for a disabled child, the GAL refused to do this.
•    The GAL completely ignored HIPPA laws.
•    With total disregard for the safety of the family, the GAL made a Motion, resulting in an Order by the Portland District Court to require a member of the Secretary of State’s Address Confidentiality Program to divulge location to her abuser or face 30 days in jail. (A transcript of this Hearing is available).
•    The GAL did this with full knowledge of the risks to the family and knowledge that the abuser had re-obtained his guns from the police department.
•    The GAL did this with full knowledge that the abuser suffered from Schizoaffective Disorder, Bi-Polar Disorder and  substance abuse issues (and had been found to be abusive, following  Hearing, by the Court,
•    The Court agreed with full knowledge. (For this reason alone, I do not believe that the Judiciary should oversee the GAL program).
In January 2007, a private, for fee, GAL was appointed by the Portland District Court in our family matter. From January 2007 through October 2011, the GAL engaged, or failed to engage, in the following
1)    Refused to attend a Protection from Abuse Hearing in February 2007. Following the 2 ½ hour Hearing, the Court found my husband to be abusive.
2)    Refused to represent my 17 year-old daughter who had spoken openly to the GAL about abuse.
3)    In April, 2007, following my daughter’s 18th birthday (March 10, 2007), the GAL filed a request with her primary care physician, and obtained her medical records.
4)    When confronted about this, the GAL stated that although he had illegally obtained the records, he would not read the records. (See email dated 7/08/07 from Attorney Hollander (A).
5)    Although my son had been receiving significant services from DHHS since 2001 (upon our move to Maine) for his disability (Autism), the GAL determined that extensive expensive evaluations to determine whether my son was Autistic was needed and made a Motion to request evaluations.
6)    The GAL then scheduled an evaluation, gave me an incorrect address, and sent my son and I on a wild goose chase to an appointment that had been scheduled and cancelled by the evaluator.
7)    Following this, the GAL filed a Motion to enforce my attendance at evaluations, stating that I was obstructionist (for attending the cancelled appointment with my son, a duplicated service appointment to determine whether my son had a disability for which MaineCare had been providing services for years).
8)    This duplication of services was not only problematic for a child with Autism, but also, costly to the taxpayers of Maine, who were paying for this duplication of services.
9)    Prior to the GAL’s scheduling of numerous evaluations for my son, my son’s developmental Pediatrician (Maine Medical Center) in conjunction with  my son’s therapeutic Team had informed the GAL that all evaluations were current, and that the child was receiving services.
10)    In addition to evaluations for my son, the GAL also required evaluations for Abuse, notwithstanding the Court’s February 2007 Findings of Abuse, following a 2 ½ hour Hearing (a Hearing which the GAL declined to attend).
11)    Again, Maine taxpayers paid for this duplication.
12)    During the week of scheduled evaluations, I was again determined to be obstructionist because my son, then age 11 years 10 months had to wait at Spurwink, during my appointment, without a babysitter because his scheduled sitter, his Grandfather, broke his hip several days before and was in the Hospital. Age to wait without a sitter at Spurwink was age 12, and my appointment could not be rescheduled according to the GAL.
13)    During the week of my appointments, my car mysteriously burst into flames in the Spurwink parking lot.
14)    No services for my resulting trauma (I was in the car and escaped) were offered, and I was reprimanded for terminating my appointments early.( See B)
15)    Although the GAL has a duty to observe the child and their interaction with both parents, in 4 years, the GAL never saw my son interact with his father, or myself, in person. (C). The GAL refused to allow me in the home when he met with my son. I was required to wait on the porch or in the basement. The GAL noted that the father and son had a strained relationship and therefore, he declined to meet with them.
16)    Following Evaluations and written reports, the GAL attempted to have all reports withheld from one party in the Divorce, me. It required my contact with the CEO of Spurwink for my rights as a consumer to be recognized and adhered to.
17)    Because my son found all interactions with the GAL to be stressful, he taped recorded all interactions and at times, requested that his Sweetser Case Manager  be present.
Throughout his representation of my son, the GAL refused to follow my son’s Service Plan, (email 9/24/07).
18)    In the fall of 2007, the GAL made a Motion to the Court to begin “Reunification Therapy” with my son and his father, although father had recently taken a high paying job in the State of Ohio.
19)    The GAL did not inform the Court that father had moved 1000 miles away and would be unlikely to attend all appointments. (Father remained in Ohio for 5 years).
20)    The GAL did not inform the Court or DHHS that the father was now earning a substantial salary and that therefore child support could be adjusted and that father could now begin providing health insurance to his children.
21)    Regarding child support and health insurance – the family was receiving MaineCare and food stamps (while father was earning a substantial salary which the GAL refused to disclose to the Court or DHHS).
22)    During 4 years of “representation” of my son, the GAL communicated daily with the child’s father (by phone and email) even though neither the GAL, nor the father, saw or communicated with the child – whom the GAL was Court Appointed to represent). The constant communication between these two men resulted in GAL billing in excess of $100,000, while the child was living at the Federal Poverty level.
A    I have no idea whether or not B’s medical records would substantiate her claims of abuse, though for the reasons stated below, I doubt they do.  As you are well aware, B insisted that I refrain from reviewing her medical records.  When I asked her to provide a release, she would not.  That was one of the reasons why I wanted to get her records and have a discussion with her physicians.  I was interested to learn from them (the records and the doctors) to what degree her brain injuries might affect her memory, her ability to accurately recount her own history, and to what degree her injuries might have affected her perceptions of her past and/or altered her personality or relationships with others, as sometimes happens with closed head injuries.  Thus, your assertion that her records would bear
her out on the issue of child abuse by C I find somewhat ironic as when I got a set of records from her pediatrician, I was threatened with "further action" by B.  Since you no longer had authority to release her records to me, I returned the records, unread, to her pediatrician.

B   Dear Tanya,
Did you read my Email? I totally agreed to reschedule with Dr. Drach. That is why you have the time and date. It is the time and date that Dr. Drach and I had already agreed upon, by phone, as mutually available. I sent you an Email and requested that Dr. Drach contact you because I was firmly told by Toby in an Email I received from him yesterday, not to reschedule.
Toby wrote "I want to remind you that any delay made by re-scheduling appointments will also delay the case going to Court. -Toby
In light of Toby's Email message, I requested that Dr. Drach call your office and clear this with you first, and inform you of our mutually agreed upon time for the rescheduling of my appointment. He and I had already worked it out by the time he called you.
I don't understand tis last sentence in your Email: “The Court Order dated May 15, 2007 states "Defendant shall cooperate with GAL and evaluators and said evaluations. Please co-operate with the scheduling needs of Spurwink.  "  
I have just demonstrated co-operation. Why have you written this? It makes no sense.
In addition, I also co-operated with Joyce Weinstein at Spurwink when she asked for an additional time slot to evaluate xxx. I even carried forth with my initial evaluation with Dr. Drach following my narrow escape from a burning vehicle in his parking lot. I offered to do this. In both of the circumstances listed, the Spurwink evaluators initially wanted to cancel or postpone, until I made workable, mutually agreed upon, suggestions with them.
Now that I think of it, I have demonstrated excellent cooperative skills. So why do you infer that my behavior has been less than cooperative? Perhaps I'm misreading your last sentence, but it does indicate that I'm not cooperating and others are required to ask me to cooperate or obtain a court order to enlist my cooperation. -



STATE OF MAINE                                  SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss.                                DOCKET NO. CV-14-82     

Michael Doyle, Falmouth, Maine


v.                                                                                MOTION TO RECUSE
Ashley Wescott, Falmouth, Maine                                                  

A few years ago this Plaintiff appeared before Judge Kelly who initiated her own recusal when she knew that her daughter was a classmate of Plaintiff’s son at Falmouth High School.  This past month Judge Goranites recused himself on demand by Attorney Walsh when it was disclosed that Plaintiff had said hello to the judge at Hannaford’s in Yarmouth and shook hands with the judge at his request.  Walsh characterized that situation as ‘flattering’ the Court to sway a decision.  

These two judges are examples of ethical conduct that should be the standard in Maine courtrooms.

In this instant case Plaintiff is outraged by this Court’s use of the word “frivolous” in describing this action.  Exhibit A.  Plaintiff is complaining about PERJURY by this Defendant.  Plaintiff is complaining about FALSE STATEMENTS to law enforcement by this Defendant. It is incomprehensible to this Plaintiff that any Court would consider PERJURY and FALSE STATEMENTS to be frivolous under any circumstances and especially one where this same Court granted money damages to a woman whose case was decided entirely on this Defendant’s perjury and the prevailing woman that also perjured herself.

This Court awarded money damages entirely by allowing the Claimant to testify to facts not in evidence.  This Court’s conduct was extremely prejudicial.

Due to this Court’s misconduct as listed above, Judge Thomas Warren should recuse himself from this case, and all other cases involving this Plaintiff, as he has demonstrated an inability to exercise restraint to review testimony and physical evidence prior to drawing any conclusion as to what will eventually be proven to be perjury.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of May 2014.

Michael Doyle
3 Shady Lane
Falmouth, ME 04105

Lawyers and Judges

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.

Leave a Reply, Your email address will not be published.

Designed & Maintained by WebSolutions-Maine

All Content supplied by Falmouth Today


Copyright © 2012 Falmouth Today All Rights Reserved.