Judge Donald Marden’s Cabbage Is Shredded


“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.”

Click here to view the PDF

As the swill turns, connect the dots.  If you have not viewed Tom Dunn’s Most Powerful, Revealing Video, please do so. You will learn of the official corruption that Mainers are facing today. The pattern has not changed….only positions of players have changed.

Tom’ s video is a draft of what was to be a full documentary. He was called into the Attorney General’s Office to conduct an investigation for them.  He apparently came up with more evidence than the A.G.’s Office wanted. Arthur Brennan (who was elevated to judgeship) brushed Tom’s evidence under the rug and Tom was off the case!

Tom’s affidavit.

Case 7 on the video…criminal cover up by DA Donald Marden….Judge Donald Marden?

Case 6 Re Louis Vafiates…husband to Vendean Vafiates, Chief Deputy Attorney General. View letter from David Lauren, Esq. Special Asst. to  A.G. Andrew Ketterer. Click here.

David Lauren, Esq./Paula Baker , click here.

Related: US Senator Olympia Snowe letter, click here.

How About The Scandal In Maine? Click here.


Judge Robert Crowley stepping down at the top of his game, click here.

Governor Paul LePage is not an attorney and doesn’t have to fear the “taking” of his BAR club membership.

Is it still “people before politics”?

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/judge-donald-mardens-cabbage-is-shredded/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

22 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. You ask, “is it STILL people before politics”….when has it EVER
    been that way…nevermind STILL! LePage has had very few times (I can count them all on one hand and not use all my fingers to do so!) that LePage has put the people before politics! So, the answer to your question is…No…it has mostly been politics before people, and it’s most unlikely to ever change with any of Maine’s political/governmental officials in the near future…unless We the People make the necessary changes to make it happen!

    • It’s never been. However, Paul LePage ran his campaign on “people before politics.” I gave him the benefit of a doubt…him not being an attorney. But he’s surrounded himself with attorneys. Where is LePage? Where are the people? Who needs a hearing aid?

  2. Hi!

    Since we have lost our county courts, within and for the county, where justice was administered, how can it be “people before politics?”

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  3. Judge Marden is just more of the same…and has climbed the political ladder. Am trying to get the word out via different avenues, including FB. I’ve kept track of who’s interested in being informed/educated and “shares” my important posts. Lots of people have information, but nothing that will move our state/country forward. Lise, you have added great info on this blog. The number of views is very good which means people are “sharing” the posts. FB is not what I expected. I have de-friended some people (nothing personal) and will continue to clean house. I must focus on who gets it or is willing “to get it” and share. Eventually, I will be off FB.

  4. Buy their very nature, politicians normally gravitate toward politics before people. Since they are members of a group of men and women who are liars, killers and thieves who provide a service at the barrel of a gun, they feel that they are never to be held accountable for their actions in life, even at the local level of town politics.

  5. uncertain how to do this ?

  6. I am the ” Lavigne ” mentioned in above case. This Marden person was alot more rude than just these comments. He now refuses me and ” audio” and I have written a motion to recuse him — he is on special assignment to ” get Beverly “. ( I don’t know if he was assigned by Humphrey or Laverdier ? )
    He had a deed drawn up, used my social security number and had clerk vicki hardy sign it and record it attempting to take my land !!!
    Anyone got any ideas on what to do – sue the court, sue the judge – move to us district ? By the way ” the charge here is = is unknown and unidentified action [ in a knew territory – between “good faith and bad faith” stated by Marsano and also, ” she is self centered and contentious ” and they keep dragging me into court on this [ 18 yrs. ].
    Actually it is a series of court errors and they must be thinking if they steal everything I own then I will go away but their errors with trust law are real…now I need help – got any ideas ?

    • Marden has a history……it’s right here. Did you view the video? He needs to be charged!

      • I tried  – I will again later… I ended up reading Tom Dunn Affidavit ? If someone will help me do the paper work… I will certainly charge him !


      • I did watch here he [ Donald Marden was DA and let man walk after killing a child ].  I am not surprised.  I would like more info… enough it is late, I did file for recusal and I have also filed charges against Clerk Vicki Hardy hwo signed  deed of my land and recorded it. beverly


  7. Hi!


    You decide.

    Ask Marden for a copy of his commission because without it he has “NEVER” been “vested” with a public office meaning that he does not possess any judicial powers, has NO immunity, is a “mere” employee of the state, and cannot exercise the sovereignty of the state of Maine as it relates to the judicial department.

    Without a commission he is an impostor and is committing fraud.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • Good morning Lise and thankyou for that . I have been to Secretary of State and I found a ” renewed oath ” and I did ask a judiciary memeber help [ no avail – also about Delahanty ] ? { I don’t know why they have come after me for all these years ? } Do you think I should simply write ,, please send me your commission ? or maybe that is not strong enough for this superior being ??? It would be important to VOID his orders because he did have clerk sign a deed using my social cesurity number and or in an attempt to take my land… ? Where are you ? I am in Central Maine by Farmington for a short time…–So, simple –
      I will do that, should I find his house in Oakland and hand deliver it… There must absolutely MUST be people in Waterville area that are still angry that , he did not care about dying child… there is blood all over his hands… by the way is this for all public.. i don’t know much about computers. ” What is 3 strikes your out ? ”
      Do , I file appeal for being denied for recording ? i did write motion for Recusal ? enough…

  8. a ton of typo errors… sorry about that !

  9. Hi!

    Yesterday I picked up (ordered it a while ago and it finally came in) a 2011 book called “The Wolters Kluwer Bouvier Law Dictionary” by Stephen Michael Sheppard, General Editor.

    I looked up the word “commission” (page 201) and here is what it says:

    Commission as Office: “An appointment to office, or the instrument declaring such an appointment. A commission is an appointment in which a specific person is commissioned as a specific officer of the government.” Take notice of the word “as.”

    Commission of Office: “The document that is evidence of an appointment to office. A commission is an instrument issued by the government under seal and by an authorized signator, granted to a person appointed to office that describes the nature of the office and the powers associated with it? Take notice of the word “of.”

    The four (4) components of a commission as described in the Constitution of the State of Maine (original) include:

    1. It must be in the name of the state

    2. Must be signed by the Governor

    3. Must be attested by the Secretary of State or his deputy

    4. Must have the seal of the state.

    This document is under seal of the State of Maine (original) so it must be a very important document, don’t you think?


    How many people actually sign the commission in order for it to be lawful?

    Answer: Two (2).

    So in the second definition it should say “signators” (plural) and not “signator” (singular).

    Without both signatures the commission becomes worthless and unlawful.

    Remember, this is a constitutional mandate (required).

    I recently received from the Maine archives a commission of a trial judge, who was a trial judge in my little town, named George D. Daniels whose commission was NEVER signed by the Governor but signed by the Secretary of State ONLY.

    Is this commission lawful?

    Absolutely not!

    So the reality is such that all his trial cases are unlawful. Hope NO one went to jail. He had no lawful business conducting trials without a commission as he was NEVER provided with a “public office” via the commission and possessed NO judicial powers and NO immunity.

    On page 574 of the same law dictionary it states in part the definition of judge:

    “A public officer appointed to decide questions of law in dispute. A judge is, broadly, any person who occupies a legal office that is dedicated to the application of the law to particular questions of fact and to the pronouncement of a judgment or order as a result of that application……………………”

    No where in this definition does it say anything about a commission.

    At least the definition has something right meaning that the judge is a “public officer” and “occupies a legal office” but doesn’t say how he gets that office which comes with judicial powers and immunity.

    What is the function of a commission?

    This is very, very important to understand.

    The function of a commission is that it is ONLY the person “so named in his commission” that gets to walk into a court (a lawful, county court, within and for the county – local control), wear the lovely black dress, and can actually sit on the bench in order to hear causes, civil and criminal, and within this office are judicial powers and immunity that he possesses upon entering the public office with a commission.

    This is so vital to comprehend.

    NO ONE ELSE CAN ENTER THIS OFFICE; only the person named in THAT commission.

    Here is the definition of judge in the 1914 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary which states in part:

    “A public officer lawfully appointed to decide litigated questions according to law (common law). An officer so named in his commission, who presides in some court.”


    How revealing!

    Now this 1914 definition of “judge” tells us in plain words that the judge (named) is a commissioned public officer.

    In the 1914 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary the definition of commission states in part:

    “Letters patent (in the actual commission it says that these letters are patent) granted by the government, to a person appointed to an office, giving him authority to perform the duties of his office. The commission is not the appointment, but only evidence of it, and, as soon as it is signed and sealed, VESTS THE OFFICE (emphasis is mine) in the appointee.” It also names a number of court cases that speaks about this issue.

    A “letters patent” is a grant of authority by someone who has authority to begin with to someone named in order to enter an (public) office and perform prescribed duties of that office.

    Without a grant of authority (commission) by an authority figure, a person who enters a public office as a judge, is nothing more than an impostor.

    Notice in the 2011 law dictionary that “letters patent” is NOT mentioned.


    What kind of office is a state-wide court?

    What kind of judge presides in one of those courts?

    Is justice administered in the state-wide courts?


    They are de facto courts, and NO commissioned judge (impostor) enters one of these courts. No justice is administered in these fake courts.

    All for now.

    More education to come.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  10. Hi Beverly,

    Provide me with your email address or phone number so I can contact you.

    You may not want to reveal the above-mentioned on here but you can contact Dottie and give it to her so she, in turn, can give it to me.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  11. Evening, Dottie, please send Lise my personal email, thankyou so much !

    • Will do. I hope I have your latest…

  12. Dottie: be careful about de-friending as you could end up preaching to the choir and numbers are needed to get the de-facto government back to the republic, remember when people have been brain washed as the people have it takes some longer to wake-up than others, some can’t or won’t wake-up, hopefully these are the ones you de-friend.

  13. Hi!

    Some people just don’t “get it” no matter how many times I go around “Robin Hood’s barnyard” with them.

    This is very, very exhausting to say the least.

    I think I will stop trying to educate anyone who has a court case pending.

    Many of them are unable to “hear” what I am trying to teach since they are soooooooooooooooooo caught up in their own issues relating to their court situation.

    This is why I am writing a book about the fraudulent state and the fraudulent judiciary.

    They can read it and study it, if they want.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  14. Hi!

    My take on this:

    According to the original Constitution of the State of Maine, it states in the judicial department the establishment of the courts and who has a delegation of authority to create them. The Supreme Judicial Court is mentioned in the constitution.

    They are constitutional courts created under the original constitution, and the legislature did NOT create the common law so, therefore, they are NOT common law courts.

    Now these constitutional courts use the common law jurisdiction.

    People have to use the correct language, otherwise, one could get “slapped over the head” if the wrong words are chosen and used. In other words, one could easily be tricked into believing
    the wrong thing.

    Furthermore, the different Supreme Judicial Court as created in 1944 is NOT the original one; it is a state-wide court acting FOR the state and not the people.

    In 1929 the state-wide courts called the Superior Court acting as “one court” (read the 1929 statute) is fraudulent.

    How can the “original” Supreme Judicial Court hear cases (on appeal) lawfully from a fraudulent court system (1929) such as above-mentioned?

    It can’t.

    A statute cannot create change in a court to participate in unlawful activities plus reduce its status such as the Supreme Judicial Court (original).

    Additionally, how can the original Supreme Judicial Court become a law court ONLY (reduced in status – it is called Supreme)? The justices from this court can answer questions of law from the governor. See original constitution.

    It can’t.

    How often does the governor ask questions of law?


    The Constitution of the State of Maine (original) mentions the Supreme Judicial Court and NOT the second one (1944).

    In order not to confuse the people, in actuality a “new” Supreme Judicial Court was created in 1929 and NOT in 1944.

    This “new” one was reduced in status which cannot happen lawfully (it is Supreme after all) and cannot hear appeals lawfully from a fraudulent “one court” Superior Court system (1929).

    This is my analysis of the 1929 creation of the “one court” state-wide Superior Court system, and the reduction of status of the original
    Supreme Judicial Court plus having the original one participate in unlawful activities.

    This can’t be done lawfully.

    What is your take on this?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  15. Beverly Lavine, you are delusional. Honorable Judge Marden is by no means “an amateur” in the world of juris prudence. You are very naïve at best.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: