FTM renews its investigation of the Maine Courts
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
TOWN OF FALMOUTH
FEDERAL JUDGE JOHN RICH IS HEARD FROM,
PETULANT OR NOT, YOU DECIDE?
September 25, 2017
When any judge volunteers to recuse himself from a case and then is adamant in their refusal to disclose why they recused themselves, it makes us wonder what was the cause for their initial recusal. Then add to that Judge Rich’s refusal to recuse in a subsequent case, as he writes in his opinion below, “is mere conjecture”. How about this judge, be forthright and fully disclose your prior conflict of interest so we can judge YOU on whether or not that conflict still exists, or takes a different form in the subsequent case?
The “assertion”, as Judge Rich wrote in his opinion, is hardy incorrect. Is it too much to ask that a FEDERAL JUDGE understand the difference between gross income and net income? Apparently it is. Judge Rich in his petulance made a point of quoting the filing, “a rudimentary knowledge of financial affairs.” The facts in a previous Review and Recommendation
(R & R) demonstrates either a total lack of that knowledge or a knowingly disregard for that knowledge to make the R & R fit this case. Either way it is conduct unbecoming a member of the Federal Bench, in much the same way as our current U.S. Attorney for the State of Maine, Thomas Delahanty, referred to black residents in a town in N.J. as “niggers” and “boons” many years ago. Do leopards really, truly, change their spots?
Are we asking too much of our Federal Judges to demonstrate INTEGRITY?
JUDGE JEFFREY MOSKOWITZ'S MISCONDUCT IN FAMILY COURT IS DISCUSSED ON CAPITOL HILL
August 21, 2017
Judge Moskowitz holds the undisputed lead in complaints against his abuse of litigants before him in Family Court over all the other judges in the entire State of Maine. Jeff was one of the judges that took 5 days for the Judiciary Committee to vote to renew his judgeship, a record of sorts when you see the average time is 15 minutes. Click and watch the video of just one of Moskowitz's victims. Pretty much tells the whole story of Moskowitz's conduct in his courtroom.
NOMINATION TO THE BENCH
JUNE 20, 2017
Chairs of the Committee and Members my name is Michael Doyle of Falmouth and I rise in opposition to Mr. Delahanty’s Nomination.
We all have three personalities, the public one, the family one, and the personal one that we all keep hidden from everyone. Every now and then the personal one sneaks out when the person thinks that there will be no consequences. Here are three examples of the personal one popping out.
Many years ago in President Johnson’s White House during a gala one of his democratic supporters walked up to Eartha Kitt, a famous black singer at the time, who was wearing a $5,000 evening grown, and said to her, “honey get me another white wine” as the woman handed Ms. Kitt her glass.
At an event during Clinton’s presidency he was caught on video saying, “Ten years ago that guy would be serving us drinks” as he pointed to President Elect Obama.
My point is some democrats are racist when they think they won’t be caught.
Fifty-one years ago I was a freshman at St. Michael’s College at the same time Tom was a senior. One night we wound up sitting together on the same beer cooler at some fund raiser. I asked Tom what was the charity we were giving money to that night. His answer was so matter of fact and so outside what I would think anyone would say to a stranger I have never forgotten it.
“The money goes to New Jersey, we call it Nickels for Niggers or Bucks for Boons.”
If a republican ever uttered these offensive words, he would never have been a judge, an Assistant United States Attorney, or anything like that.
I respectively request that his nomination be denied for cause.
WHO ARE THE BIG USERS OF H1B WORK VISAS IN PORTLAND
April 26, 2017
Hire Americans! Not so much in some of the biggest employers in the Portland area. For example T.D. Bank not only hires techs from India but the pay is so low they live 3 or 4 to a room at the Day’s Inn across from the Mall for months at a time. These young men have to taxi back and forth to the T.D. Bank complex on Route 26 in Falmouth. This is the same motel that houses an older computer tech from Maryland that spends his weeks at Unum and commutes from his house in a Maryland suburb. There doesn’t seem to be a shortage of foreign tech workers at Idexx or Wex because they cost a lot less than the Americans would.
How’s this for an idea for these companies to save even more money? Have their entire executive floor out sourced to India not for half the current compensation of the Americans, but likely a tenth or twentieth of the comfortable comp packages they enjoy firing Americans and hiring Indians.
PRESS HERALD WITHHOLDS KEY FACTS IN 96 LAWYERS’ LETTER TO SENATORS COLLINS AND KING
April 13, 2017
FTM was interested to find out the party affiliations of the lawyers that signed the letter and we started with the three with Falmouth after their name. Two of the three, Wanderer, Merz, were Dems and Hathaway was un-enrolled, or likely a Dem like Sen. King who caucuses with the Dem party in the Senate.
Next we went to Portland to search their voter records. This is what we found:
DEMOCRATS UNENROLLED NOT REGISTERED IN PORTLAND
O’Brien Hemingway Wiggins
St. Onge Mesinschi
Morris (Green Party)
How honest are the lawyers who claim to be voters in Portland, and aren’t registered to VOTE in Portland? We’ll go out on a limb and speculate that wherever they are registered to VOTE they are either Dems or un-enrolled (a stealth Dem).
The Press Herald failed to disclose that the 96 lawyers protesting Judge Gorsuch’s nomination are likely ALL DEMOCRATS towing the party line,
A LIE by omission!
THE PRESS HERALD’S CLIFF SCHECHTMAN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, FOR 5 MAINE NEWSPAPERS, IS RELUCTANT TO INVESTIGATE, LIKELY THE WORSE JUDGE IN MAINE, JEFFREY MOSKOWITZ!
April 4, 2017
The emails below should be enough to launch a major investigative review of every case Judge Moskowitz has ever touched. FTM points to at least six cases we’ve reviewed that indicate corruption, incompetency, or a combination of both. This is the judge that FTM testified against at his hearing to be re-nominated to the bench, the judge that had an unprecedented three lawyers write letters to the Judiciary Committee against his re-nomination, and the same judge that the Judiciary Committee took five days to vote to approve his re-nomination. The usual time to vote for re-nomination is less than fifteen minutes.
Now we have an email from a caseworker supporting Sharon Blanchard’s record of misconduct in her epic divorce case from Ron Blanchard, a highly successful South Portland businessman. How does any woman in 2016 get only $170/wk. spousal support after 29 years of marriage and two daughters from a multi-million dollar divorce estate? How is that decision reached by any competent judge in Maine?
It’s easy just get in front of the worse judge (in our opinion based upon the empirical evidence) in the entire State of Maine, backed up by the Maine Supreme Court, defending a brother of the Black Robe. In Maine, justice in any court goes to the one with the best connections, not the facts of the case, just who is friends with which litigant.
On Monday, November 7, 2016, 10:41 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Since I do not have a release of information I cannot send this directly. I am sending you the letter I wrote and you can send it to him or not. If you do send it cc it back to me so he will know you did not alter the letter and will know I wrote the content not you.
Subject: RE: Fw: Unbelieveable story about judge and corruption in our courts if interested, 712-9595
Date: 2016-11-07 08:46
Dear Mr. Schechtman:
I was asked to write you regarding Sharon Blanchard's experience as an abused wife attempting to divorce her very rich husband. I, like you, initially could not make heads or tails of her story and believed that she definitely needed a reality check. And then I began reading all of her documents that began in 2011 when she originally began pursuing her divorce. She reported from the beginning to her lawyers that her husband threatened that she would end up with nothing and be homeless which she will be on November 10, 2016 when she goes to her final court hearing for an eviction from the house she has lived in for over 30 years. She had many lawyers that did not represent her as they continually would get caught in the web of wanting to get paid by her husband as she had very little money to pay them with. Her lawyers even encouraged her to obtain SSI which she did and currently has a small monthly income while her ex-husband continues to have many resources. The whole process is convoluted and cannot be explained fully in an email. What I can say briefly is that she was not represented by her lawyers adequately, and as I read in the deposition the Judge lectured only her in court as being the only dishonest person among the many men in the room from her lawyers to her husband. Sharon has reached out to many people for help as she seeks a just divorce settlement from an abusive husband she spent 29 years with.
So this raises a lot of questions about our present day systems with regards to women's rights or disability rights. What recourse do we have if we as women are forced to stay with our husbands because we do not have the financial resources to obtain an adequate settlement? Do we stay and wait for them to die or do we take the risk with divorce to be forced to be homeless or be encountered with more abuse or death?
This is not my story but Sharon Blanchard's own experiences of what she has gone through to seek a divorce from an abusive husband. I would be willing to sit with Sharon as she tells her story to your investigative reporting staff so that her truth can be told.
Than you for responding to her and allowing her this chance to share her story.
Karen St. Peter, MHRT-C
On Friday, November 4, 2016, 2:25 PM, Cliff Schechtman <email@example.com> wrote:
I'm sorry. I just cannot make heads or tails of this. Divorces are messy but I can't find any proof that the entire system is conspiring against you. If you want your case worker to write me, I'll read whatever she sends. These things are never black and white.
Portland Press Herald
Maine Sunday Telegram
One City Center 5th Floor
Portland, Maine 04101
From: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 4:10 PM
To: Cliff Schechtman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Unbelieveable story about judge and corruption in our courts if interested, 712-9595
My caseworker Karen St.Peters, from Health Affiliates of Maine will verify I have facts to back up my story, she has seen the facts. I have been trying to get help for the last three years. She has never seen a case as bad as mine and she has seen many. She has been trying to get me help for over a year without success. I am being railroaded by my ex husband (abusive) well known business man in South Portland, my own well known lawyers, his lawyers and judges because I wouldn't stop talking about the forgery, perjury and conspiracy going on by well known lawyers, and illegal judgment from Judge Jeff Moskowitz on the bias false testimony of OUR family lawyer against me about our prenuptial, from 1986. Our family lawyer and the defendant's book keeper have full control of our multi million estate in defendant's will. The prenuptial had been made invalid numerous times previously with facts from the abusive defendant in his deposition written February 15,2013. The prenup was even invalidated by facts at our trial the judge ignored.We owned a multi-million dollar estate and it was given to the defendant 100% and is going to leave me homeless and indigent November 10,2016 in court. I am 66 years old, disabled, abused for 29 years by the defendant, which has been documented by the court, getting a PFA on the defendant from 2012 to 2015, which has been kept hushed during our three year drawn out divorce proceedings. A handwritten order was written May 22,2013 that I didn't sign gave the defendant full control of our estate while I lived below poverty level, and still living below poverty level suffering with mental and physical disabilities caused by the defendant, lawyers and judges making false testimony and bankruptcy ruse. My first lawyer, December 2012, wrote in the divorce complaint days after I retained him that the defendant was the only one interested in our real estate, unknown to me until the summer of 2015. My second lawyer refused to take the defendant to court for non support ordered by the court August 29,2013. I lived on nothing to $170 a week the whole time he represented me. I am still living below poverty level. I have had numerous lawyers, most working to help the defendant get loans for millions, some with 33% interest. The defendant was up to date on our mortgages when I asked for a divorce July 2, 2011 when I had had enough of his abuse. The defendant stopped paying on mortgages and the loan at 33% interest. The lawyers all knew my prenuptial was invalid and I presume the judge was aware by our court files. The judge seemed to be involved during our entire divorce. I have appealed in Supreme court with an oral argument, also with a reconsideration , both denied. My story should be told, it happens to many women trying to divorce their abusive spouse. My first two well known lawyers were working together to get me to forget about the order billing me for their time together and denying he was communicating with my first lawyer. Second lawyer told me and my therapist he was going to take the defendant to higher court for business fraud He also said he was going to get a receiver to run all our businesses. He took me to a referee in his office building and the referee gave our entire estate to the defendant, the prenuptial was invalid at that time. The defendant paid the referee $3000, while I live in poverty. The defendant has broken the PFA numerous times stalking and harassing me, coming into my house and garage removing assets The judge has reamed me in court, but no one else for the same thing. The judge refused me to speak in court. My lawyer in court never brought up important fact,when I asked her why she wasn't defending me she said,not to tell her how to lawyer and she wish she had never met me. She went into the defendant's office to look at his files with the defendant and his girlfriend, which she denied and said would be unethical. In court she admitted going to the defendant's office and Judge Moskowitz said it was okay. My lawyers just wanted to help the defendant remove me from one of our houses, so the defendant could make me homeless like he had threatened me for 29 years if I divorced him and his abuse. I have PTSD depression, and ADHD. The lawyers try to convince me I am crazy when I talk about what is going on. My second lawyer told me not to report them because they are well known and no one would believe me. I have had a couple of lawyers that could see what was happening, one asked me to fire him and the other went to Supreme court for me. I was refused to get a forensic account by my lawyers or to have my own witnesses at court. My caseworkers number is 207-317-6011 if you want more details, I have been traumatized and am going to trauma therapy. I break out in a major skin disorder all over my body because of extreme stress, which will leave scars. There is a lot more to my story, any help you could suggest would be appreciated and greatly needed. I hope you can understand my story because of the trauma I am suffering I don't explain thing to well. I have been made dependent on the abusive defendant for 21 years of our 29 year marriage. I was in therapy for about 22 years with the same therapist being abused and told to get a divorce and the court would be fair giving me a settlement I could live on. The defendant is a diagnosed narcissist with other mental disorders. I am starting to get sick over the abuse and having anxiety attack, can't sleep etc. Sharon Blanchard 207-712-9596
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016, 10:30 AM, Cliff Schechtman <email@example.com> wrote:
Always interested, usually disappointed by lack of proof, but fire away...
Portland Press Herald
Maine Sunday Telegram
One City Center 5th Floor
Portland, Maine 04101
15. Page 24, No costs or fees are warranted as this appeal was filed in good faith based upon a history of bad conduct by Appellee’s counsel 9 and prejudicial conduct by the hearing judge. In footnote 6 the email was included in the Appeal as an example of a reviewed email as part of the 1,372 and its duplicate as provided as one of the ordered 27 from the withheld group. It obviously can’t properly be in both groups and it is likely that the 27 ordered emails were not provided by Appellee under order by the court.
Most, if not all of the withheld emails, should be turned over to Appellant.
All requested fees and costs should be denied as this appeal was justified by
misconduct of counsel by withholding emails, threating Appellant, and lying in a sworn affidavit, to include the prejudicial conduct of Judge Wheeler.
Dated: Falmouth, Maine
January 25, 2017
Michael A. Doyle, Pro Se
3 Shady Lane
Falmouth, Maine 04105
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Table of Cases:
Smith v. Maryland 442 U.S. 735 (1979)…………………………..1
LOCAL LAWYER, TOM AINSWORTH, ‘EXPERT’ IN PRE-NUPS?
February 23, 2017
According to sources Tom wrote the pre-nup for the couple because he was the corporate lawyer for Ron’s companies. We might be wrong but FTM is told by other sources that for ANY pre-nup to be valid each party MUST be represented by their own lawyer. Maybe Ainsworth knows more about pre-nups than the other sources we talked with about this case. But, then again, Ainsworth could be wrong and had the parties execute an invalid pre-nup that is now part of a complicated divorce revolving around alleged abuse, bankruptcy fraud, and Ron Blanchard’s desire to bring a man to the marital bed. Ron owns, or did own, Crown Paint, Royal Oil, the body shop, and the storage facility on outer Broadway South Portland.
Below you can read an email thread from another lawyer discussing the pre-nup. This is why the average person gets screwed in Maine Courts everyday.
From: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Date: May 2, 2016 at 3:15:09 PM EDT
To: John Simpson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Karen St.Peters" <email@example.com>, "S. Cornfoot" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Prenuptial
Reply-To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
What is your defense going to be?
On Monday, May 2, 2016 10:32 AM, John Simpson <email@example.com> wrote:
Ainsworth said he modeled the prenup on California law, but that is not relevant since only Maine law applies. What is a little relevant is that Maine law changed the year after you signed the prenup to require re-signing within 18 months of having a child. This tells us that at about the time you signed the agreement, people in Maine (or at least members of the Maine Legislature) thought having a child should invalidate a prenup. The reason being, that enforcing provisions in the prenup might not be in the best interest of a child.
You are right, I can not say Ron broke the prenup by abusing you because that was not brought up at trial.
John P. Simpson, Esq.
5 Island View Drive
Cumberland Foreside, Maine 04110
On May 2, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Sharon1950-HP wrote:
Ainsworth did say he used California laws to write the prenup at the trial because Maine didn't have laws at that time. California laws say you have to sign it again in 18 months if a child is born , I refused to sign again.
I don't understand how you can use Ron broke the contract when that wasn't brought up at the trial.
Sent from my iPhone Sharon
On May 2, 2016, at 12:05 AM, Sharon1950-HP <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I see Libby,s attachment was denied on Jan 20, 16, after it was granted.
Sent from my iPhone Sharon
On May 2, 2016, at 12:02 AM, John Simpson <email@example.com> wrote:
Yes, but Wendy never introduced the promissory note as evidence or argued it would modify the prenup, so that argument is waived. I still think you should be repaid, but we'll have to see whether the Law Court agrees with me.
On Sunday, May 1, 2016, Sharon1950-HP <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Actually I believe Tom telling me to loan money to Ron for our mortgage was brought up at the trial.
Sent from my iPhone Sharon
On May 1, 2016, at 10:10 PM, John Simpson <email@example.com> wrote:
You make several good points. Unfortunately, the points are all moot now because they were not made at trial. An appeal can only address mistakes of law or improper conclusions made by the judge at trial. The law court does not question witnesses at the oral arguments.
Hi John, Is it legal to invalidate a prenuptial numerous times , then say it is valid at the end of a three year divorce because Ron couldn't make me disappear like he promised me? Isn't Bob Levine in big trouble knowing the prenuptial was invalidated when Ron had his deposition February 15,13 and Libby verified to Levine February 18, 13 that Ron hadn't listed his debts in his prenuptial.Gene Libby told me and Dana Prescott the prenuptial was invalidated. I read the transcript , I want to let you know I have hearing problems and didn't hear Levine correctly when I answered yes I wanted the prenup , which I think Ron verifies in his testimony that he is the one that wanted the prenup. The judge didn't go by the facts of the case. It wasn't proven that I had full disclosure. Wendy was aware of all the reasons the prenuptial was invalid, I sent her a list of numerous facts why it was not valid. Tom asking me to loan Ron money for our mortgage is another reason the prenuptial should be invalid. I was investing in our property and businesses and had been through our entire marriage and four years before marriage. I supported myself for the first eight years of our marriage working part time and caring for our child ,Ron and home I am just feeling this circus has gone on way to long. Are the jugdes able to ask the parties questions at the oral hearing? I was curious about some of my questions. Ron testified at our trial he wasn't sure how long our marriage would last that is why he wanted the prenup, which invalidates the prenuptial, assuming we are getting divorced while writing a prenuptial. Ainsworth wrote the prenuptial according to California laws because we didn't have any at the time. The california laws say the prenuptial has to be resigned in 18 months if a child is born. Tom wanted me to resign, when I refused he said the prenuptial was invalid.Ainsworth knows my prenuptial is invalid, he was asking me to sign for Ron's deliberate debt for my claims for refinancing. Libby said he made me a Claim in the spring of 2013 and was telling me in the fall of 2013. Just wanted to touch base with you, I haven't heard from you in a while and give you some information , you might not have. Thank you. Sharon Blanchard
Hi John, I just learned abuse is not a defense for a prenuptial to be invalid. I'm not sure if I sent these to you.1) Libby telling Levine Ron didn't list his debts in the prenuptial , which Levine already knew from Ron's deposition. Was Mr. Levine committing an illegal act knowing all along Ron didn't list his debts in his prenuptial since February 15,2013? It only takes one thing to invalidate a prenuptial , I read. Ron admitted to a lot more reasons in his deposition and Levine was aware of them. 2) Wendy saying Ainsworth wasn't telling the truth. 3) Libby telling Prescott the prenuptial is exempt in paragraph 11 of the forged order. 4) Gene Libby knew the prenuptial was invalid when he asked Ainsworth for prenuptial information. What are your thoughts? Sharon
ACCUSED ABUSER STEPS INTO THE LIGHT, OUT FROM UNDER HIS ROCK!
February 13, 2017
You have to wonder for a moment, what would you do if your daughter was married to man that picked her up out of a bed and through her on the floor?
We have a very clear idea what we would do when we found out this had happened to one of our daughters.
You can read the statement of a wife that was thrown on the floor and her husband’s email to FTM and our reply.
Now will you wonder for the next moment what these children are living through in their daily lives watching their own father treat their mother like this? What kind of adults will they be? Has he destroyed them and any future they will have or will they become monsters in their own right?
FTM didn’t publish this complaint in our first article about Sawicki out of concern for his wife and kids, but when he wants to get a lawyer involved he forces us to make public how he abused his wife physically and the children at least emotionally.
Name: David Sawicki
Is this Confidential Information?: Does not matter
Email Type: Work Email
Phone number:: 2075207587
Additional Information: Responding to your article that mentions me and my wife Diane Beem. You list unfounded allegations that were made against me by my wife that appeared in a PFA that she withdrew. No mention of that in your article. Secondly, your article states that I made a threat against the "other man". I will be contacting my attorney.
From: Michael Doyle <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:39 AM
Subject: SECOND EMAIL FOR NEW POST REALLY URGENT
Tell your lawyer everything because I will in court and I'll start with a drug test for you.
THE WORST DIVORCE FTM HAS SEEN…SO FAR!
December 8, 2016
Rarely does FTM have a woman so destroyed by her divorce that not only does she comes forward to tell her story, BUT she wants it published on FTM.
Here it is in all its horrific details:
Ronald Blanchard is the abusive husband in this horror show. He owns or did own Crown Paint, Royal Oil, and Broadway Auto Body plus several other successful companies and real estate. Enough real estate that Art Girard was willing to float an $800,000 bridge loan to facilitate a refi with T.D. Bank on a property worth over $2,000,000. This is the tip of a multi-million dollar marital estate that the ex-wife has to fight to get $170/WEEK
Who is Ronald Blanchard?
Someone who wants to wear his wife’s silk panties.
Someone who wants to wear his wife’s silk nighty.
Someone who is abusive to his ex-wife.
Someone who exhibits all the traits of a physically abused child and one that was also SEXUALLY ABUSED.
Someone that wanted to bring another person to the marital bed, A MAN!
Who are the lawyers with their snout in this trough?
Tom Ainsworth billed $50,000 South Portland
Gene Libby billed 52,000 Kennebunk
Dana Prescott billed 20,000 Saco/Portland
Catherine Miller billed 3,000 Portland
Park Burnmister billed 3,170 Portland
Wendy Starkey billed 27,000 Wells
John Simpson billed 4,000 Falmouth
Who’s the judge in the center of this Cluster? JEFFERY MOSKOWITZ!
On Friday, December 2, 2016, 7:06 AM, Michael Doyle <email@example.com> wrote:
Would you like me to post what happened to you so others won't think it only happened a few times?
Unbelieveable story MOSKOWITZ giving abusive husband of 29 yrs our entire multimillion dollar estate and making me the elderly, disabled , abused ex wife live below poverty level and about to be homeless in a couple of days because I wouldn't shut up about the fraud going on in my case for three years by my own lawyers and one conflict of interest lawyer who testified at our final trial August 24,2015 about our prenup signed 30 years ago under duress, no full disclosure of fianaces, etc that had been invalidated numerous time for many reasons stated in defendant's deposition taken Feb 15,13. I was refused a fair trial, I was refused any of my own witnesses. PFA on defendant fro 2012 to 2015 for physical abuse. Is there no justice for abused women in MOSKOWITZ 's court room? I am traumatized, depressed, living in poverty most of my divorce proceedings are gone.
From: Mark V. Franco <MFranco@dwmlaw.com>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 3:07 PM
To: Michael Doyle
Subject: Doyle v. Town of Scarborough
I’ve attached a copy of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) for your review. Please accept this as my request to confer. I will not speak to you by phone or in person unless a Judicial Officer is present. All communications between you and me/ this firm will be via email or regular mail. You are not allowed to have any contact with the Town of Scarborough directly concerning this matter. All communications will be through me. If you violate this mandate I will immediately notify the court and request sanctions.
I am satisfied with the Scheduling Order(and the deadlines set forth) issued by the Court on September 20th. If you have any objections to the Order you should submit those objections to the Court.
f) Conference of the Parties; Planning for Discovery.
(1) Conference Timing. Except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or when the court orders otherwise, the parties must confer as soon as practicable—and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b).
(2) Conference Content; Parties’ Responsibilities. In conferring, the parties must consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery plan. The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after the conference a written report outlining the plan. The court may order the parties or attorneys to attend the conference in person.
(3) Discovery Plan. A discovery plan must state the parties’ views and proposals on:
(A) what changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including a statement of when initial disclosures were made or will be made;
(B) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues;
(C) any issues about disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced;
(D) any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials, including—if the parties agree on a procedure to assert these claims after production—whether to ask the court to include their agreement in an order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502;
(E) what changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed; and
(F) any other orders that the court should issue under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c).
Mark V. Franco
207.253.0590 Direct | 207.838.5114 Cell
84 Marginal Way, Suite 600, Portland, ME 04101-2480
800.727.1941 | 207.772.3627 Fax | dwmlaw.com
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of any privilege, including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege if applicable. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments from any computer.
From: Michael Doyle <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 10:43 AM
To: Mark V. Franco
Cc: TOBY DILWORTH; PETER FELMLY; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; BILL PLOUFFE; email@example.com
Subject: Re: Doyle v. Town of Scarborough
I take offense to the tenor of your email. Let's review YOUR conduct: You threatened me, lied about it in your answer to my motion for sanctions, then filed a false affidavit swearing to your lie under oath. If anyone needs a court officer to be present while dealing with you, it would be me.
This case was started because of a requested fee of over $3,500 for emails from Scarborough, that Bill Shane, Town Manager of Cumberland, said he could produce in few minutes for free. That request was reduced to less then $600 during the proceedings and reduced to zero in the Final Order.
It makes me wonder if Thompson Perkins lost interest in a partner that seems to do poorly against an amateur. Perhaps you can get Dilworth to show you how he didn't get $5,000 in fees awarded against me in his hearing.
THE DARK SIDE OF PETER DETROY, ESQ.
June 8, 2016
(Editor’s Note: This article was started on May 17th (note the date in the upper right corner of the Google search page) prior to DeTroy’s death. We wished he was alive today to have him deny this and get the Cosby treatment where the women come pouring out of the woodwork.)
“Peter DeTroy was a wonderful leader and role model…” Chief Justice Leigh Saufley
“One of the top five lawyers in the state.” Gov. John Baldacci
“He was a great lawyer and a great person.” Jonathan Brogan, Esq.
A former sexual assault counselor reported that she and other women were propositioned while in DeTroy’s office seeking legal advice. Many of them acquiesced out of fear and the desperation of needing DeTroy’s help. These desperate women submitted to his advances in his office over and over again in direct exchange for legal services from DeTroy. None of them dared to complain to anyone who might have had the authority to stop DeTroy. Why? This gives an entirely new meaning to the term PRO BONER.
Norman, Hanson, & DeTroy, also known as the Three Thieves of Congress Street, (before their move to Canal Plaza) due to their ability to run the legal meter (billable hours) on their insurance company clients until it was time to settle the case before a trial. One former associate said they could only put up with it for a few years before they had to escape that kind of misconduct.
DeTroy was the lead lawyer for the State on the Tobacco Case, the lead lawyer for the State on the Car Test Case, and who knows how many other times DeTroy was hired by the Attorney General. Who do you report misconduct by DeTroy to when his client is the AG for the State of Maine?
Keeping in mind that DeTroy and his partners made MILLONS from the tobacco case alone (the rumor around Portland was the partners upgraded to bigger houses without needing to sell their current one first, by paying cash for the new one) and a big payday from saving the State of Maine from having to pay off a $24 MILLION claim to the Car Test company after they built emission testing sites all over the state when Maine realized, oops, we don’t need them.
We point out this nexus of DeTroy, the Maine AG’s Office, and MILLIONS of fees paid to Norman, Hanson, & DeTroy because of direct knowledge of DeTroy’s lying, underhanded, and unethical conduct in a case where he did what he had to do to keep from being sued for malpractice himself. After all, isn’t it better to send someone to jail than have it proven that your legal advice was the cause of the crime.
Below you can see the three lawyers search pages on GOOGLE where the website www.lyinglawyers.com appears in the first few items. Berne was the referral that DeTroy made to put distance between him and his CLIENT, Doyle. VanDyke is there because he was being sued for malpractice and failed to disclose that fact to his CLIENT Doyle, that VanDyke’s lawyer was Peter DeTroy. So, to defend VanDyke’s CLIENT Doyle, VanDyke would have to cross-examine VanDyke’s lawyer Peter DeTroy. How would that work? It was much easier for DeTroy to get his Client VanDyke to send Doyle to jail. Then read DeTroy’s plan that was “excellent” according to Attorney Ralph Dyer. Especially, item c. “tell the clients the investment is working.” All the sales charged as a crime, took place after the memo was received and acted upon by Doyle. This is where Peter DeTroy caused the crime to take place and then falsely claimed he was without blame.
DeTroy’s proffered testimony was a complete lie after he stated his name. He claimed that Doyle was warned in September that the investment program was a Ponzi. If so, how does he explain the fax from Dyer’s Office to Doyle in December the same year?
Perhaps DeTroy is one of the top five crooked lawyers in the state as well, Gov. Baldacci.
This is hardly sour grapes from a former client when we have personal knowledge of the following grifs by DeTroy and his partner in legal slight of hand, Ricky Berne.
First, there were the Pottery Store owners in Edgecomb. The son killed his girlfriend and a few days later, under intense questioning by his father, he killed his father. Lenny Sharon wanted $100,000 for EACH case. The DeTroy and Berne duo, wanted $100,000 for both cases done jointly. We told the widow to get a court appointed lawyer for her son because the sentence no matter how much she spent was going to be at least 30 years. She ignored our suggestion and he was sentenced to 40 years. Then DeTroy talked her into an appeal when he said he would get the sentence reduced to 10 years. Another $30,000 down the drain when the appeal was denied.
Second, was the Dunwoody case in Falmouth where the wonderful DeTroy was at one time on the school board and a fabulous leader, a lawyers lawyer, and one of the top five lawyers in the state. Dunwoody, a pilot, father of three, and expert skier, took a fall at Sugarloaf where he nearly died. Confined to a wheelchair, personality altered from the T.B.I., and about to be divorced falls into the clutches of the tag team of Peter and Ricky. DeTroy’s plan was to strip Dunwoody of all assets, pensions, disability payments, IRAs, and joint marital assets and send him to die in a nursing home in Minnesota where they have excellent benefits for homeless disabled veterans (he was a former air force pilot). Dunwoody was under the advice of Ricky (Peter loved to throw Ricky a bone every chance he got because Ricky NEEDED one) because Peter was Dunwoody wife’s lawyer. When Dunwoody mother got wind of what Peter and Ricky were up to, she jumped in her car and drove to Falmouth from Massachusetts, and stopped the raid dead in its tracks. She moved to the flats and Dunwoody lived with her, saw his son graduate from Falmouth High and the younger two grow up.
Third, the Liberty case, a nephew of Michael Liberty the real estate mogul from Gray, had an attractive wife that Michael the uncle took an interest in. The nephew suspicious of his wife’s relationship and separated from her agreed to a sexual encounter while he secretly video recorded her coming out of the bathroom wearing nothing but high heels before they had sex. She charged him later with rape and not only did DeTroy not use the recording because it was too inflammatory, he threw it away (warning NEVER give your lawyer originals of anything!) and made the nephew plead guilty to assault. This started a series of in and out of jail based upon false charges of drug use. Picked up on a Friday, hearing on Monday, two weeks for the test results, and released due to negative results, repeatedly. Was DeTroy working for the nephew’s benefit or was Michael Liberty paying DeTroy under the table for the outcome he wanted for his relationship with the nephew’s wife?
Finally, how badly do you treat your clients to have to carry a pistol back and forth to work? FTM is told nearly a dozen lawyers at Norman, Hanson & DeTroy come to their office armed. We are hoping a source will allow us to write about their first hand knowledge of what can only be described as a RICO case, that is the entire Norman, Hanson & DeTroy law firm method of doing business.
If DeTroy was one of the top five lawyers in the state, what are the bottom five lawyers like?
Editor’s side bar:
You can tell a lot about a father by how the adult children turn out. The last time we saw the daughter she was living at an over 55 community with her mother in her late 20’s or early 30’s. She had a weird hair color and was morbidly obese. We haven’t had any stellar reports about DeTroy’s two sons and what was glaringly apparent, not a single quote in the obit from them, or for that matter what a great father DeTroy was to them.
HOW DOES ANY GROWN MAN POST THIS
KIND OF COMMENT, UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING MUCH WORSE IN THE SHADOWS?
April 18, 2016
In discussions with many adult men, all of them parents, we couldn’t fine one of them that could ever imagine themselves saying this in private, much less posting it to any site. Most of them expressed extreme disgust that a lawyer in Maine would be so public and blatant, in what to them, seemed to be a pedophile type thought, expressed publicly. What would a search warrant for Waxman’s devices turn up? We shudder to think, god help us all!
PAUL FRITZSCHE’S HEARING ON HIS NOMINATION TO ACTIVE RETIRED JUSTICE
November 11, 2015
Our reporter has been waiting patiently for seven years to testify before the Judiciary Committee of the Maine Legislature about what Fritzsche did to protect lawyers, Peter DeTroy, Ralph Dyer, and David VanDyke from malpractice suits. After three days of testimony from lawyers, Thomas Hallett, Mary Davis (the court appointed and paid for expert witness), and VanDyke, Fritzsche came to the conclusion, in direct opposition to the Maine Bar Rules of Ethics, that both Hallett, who quoted the Rule number in his testimony, and Davis’ testimony that DeTroy could not testify, to his previous lies, in a trial (our accurate description of DeTroy’s proffered pre-trial testimony). The reason for this ruling was JUDGE FRITZSCHE doesn’t KNOW when privilege attaches. You would think that something that basic, that simple, that mundane, would be the easiest thing for any judge, even Fritzsche, to understand.
Fritzsche actually thought that the Nimpcompoop VanDyke could prepare for a trial overnight with NO witness list, NO pretrial motions, and NO clue what he would ask the first witness for the State, Peter DeTroy, who was defending VanDyke for malpractice in another case, after DeTroy made millions in the Car Test case and the Cigarette settlement case. Can you say “Quid pro quo”? Fritzsche, the hack, didn’t think VanDyke having to cross- examine his own lawyer was a conflict of interest, because VanDyke didn’t think it was conflict. Yes, we should let these two legal geniuses decide what is, and what is NOT, a conflict. Right!
Fritzsche, during his testimony, made a point that he thought Pro Se litigants should hire a lawyer. What he left out was our researcher couldn’t find one case, out of 73 reviewed, where Fritzsche ruled in favor of any Pro Se litigant. Translation: hire a lawyer even if you can’t afford one, skip paying your rent for a couple of months to pay your lawyer, and give up eating food if you have to because if you don’t hire a lawyer Fritzsche will rule against you.
The icing on the cake for this charade was several members of the Committee consulting their notes to read the PLANTED questions to give Fritzsche a chance to BS some more about what a great and caring judge he’s been for years. His resume is bereft of any litigation experience prior to being set loose on hapless Maine Defendants by Joe Brennan. The only ‘legal’ experience mentioned was house counsel for some non-profits. Just the background we need for a criminal justice on the bench. It seems Fritzsche missed class at law school when they were teaching Ethics 101 and Conflict of Interest 101, you know the part where they teach you that you CAN’T cross examine your own lawyer.
Apparently, this is the only kind of judge we can get on the bench in Maine and the Judiciary Committee eats this crap up with a spoon, and sic’s one bad judge after another on the destitute defendants of Maine.
No wonder Maine ranks 42nd in corruption in State Government with a grade of “F”.
You can watch the video of the testimony below.
JUDGE DONALD MARDEN DOUBLES DOWN ON HIS LACKOF KNOWLEDGE OF RULE 76 H
May 1, 2015
The reason we have incompetent, rude, arrogant, condescending, rule and law violating, and out of control judges on our courts in Maine is because they are placed there by the Joint Judiciary Committee of the Legislature even AFTER they demonstrate that they don’t understand Rule 76 H during their own hearing.
Judge Donald Marden, a longtime judge in Maine said it was his policy not to allow any recording in his courtroom other than the official court reporter. Only one problem with that it violates rule 76 H. Even when confronted with the copy of the rule and QUESTIONED by a member of the Committee he held fast to his WRONG assessment of what was on the printed page!
FTM had to point out to the Committee that Judges Warren, Cole, Mills, Kelly, and Wheeler, all Superior Court Judges in Cumberland County understand the rule and COMPLY with it. Albeit several had to consult their own rulebook, while on the bench, to read the rule because apparently no one had ever invoked it upon them before.
These are the same judges that knock Pro Se litigants out of court all the time for violating any rule about filing deadlines, reply deadlines, fee payments, discovery deadlines, and many, many more. Yet, here we have a longtime judge so incompetent that he can’t understand the rule in his own hand. How many other rules does he violate every day?
SUPREME COURT JUDGE ELLEN GORMAN’S TREMBLING LEFT THUMB AT PODIUM DURING RENOMINATION HEARING, NERVOUSNESS OR EARLY ONSET PARKINSON?
March 16, 2015
During the hearing in Augusta on Thursday the 12th FTM sat to the left rear on the podium and one seat away from Judge Gorman. She was the first to speak and the left thumb, not clamped to the podium like her four fingers were, trembling out of control, struck FTM. We find it hard to believe that a trained lawyer, an experienced judge of nearly 20 years, would be this nervous speaking about her own qualifications to KEEP HER JUDGESHIP.
Could she be nervous because she knew there would be at least one person pointing out her inability to know which rule to apply for the waiver of fees or was her concern that the Administrative Order issued by her court that violates the Freedom of the Press Clause of the First Amendment in seven different parts of that Order would be pointed to as an example of her overwhelming incompetency as a sworn officer of Maine’s highest Court.
The thumb trembled until she forced it down on the podium and out of sight of FTM.
If she wasn’t nervous does she in fact have the onset of Parkinson that was undisclosed to the hearing that may accelerate and make her incapable to carry out her duties.
Rules? What Rules? Because, the Ruling Class have NO RULES.
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.
Click to add text...