FOIA Request To Judge Robert E. Mullen Re Commissions

Courtesy Lise from Maine

A FOIA request addressed to Judge Mullen was responded to by James T. Glessner, State Court Administrator.

Click here.

Published in: on December 5, 2013 at 4:23 pm  Comments (7)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/foia-request-to-judge-robert-e-mullen-re-commissions/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Unbelievable: They have created a false office or fictitious for fascism ie office of a branch which does not vest the power of the office!Wow! Fraud upon fraud!

    • What false office are you referring to?

  2. Hi!

    First of all, take particular notice of the name of the so-called court, Maine District Court, which is a state-wide court acting “for” the state and is NOT a county court, within and for the county, which is “local
    control,” the people’s power.

    Also, notice that Mr. Mullen (I call him “Mr.” ONLY because he has not proven to me that he is a commissioned judge as yet) cannot get my name right even though I signed the Freedom of Access request with my full name.

    My name is Lise and NOT Lisa.

    Is he blind?

    Or is he stupid?

    Furthermore, Mr. Mullen addressed me as “madam” without the “e” on the end.

    Does Mr. Mullen think that I am Madam Mayflower?

    Is he insinuating implicitly that I am a prostitute?

    I do have to wonder.

    Don’t you?

    Perhaps he didn’t like my Freedom of Access request since he cannot produce the commission (he hasn’t as yet) that I requested which would show that he is an imposter wearing a lovely black dress and sitting there in “silence” allowing anyone who enters that “fake” court to believe that he is a genuine commissioned judge.

    Isn’t this nice?

    Shame on you, Mr. Mullen, for participating in fraud against the people of Maine!

    If you don’t have a commission, then you are committing fraud and treason against the people of Maine.

    Mr. Mullen further states: “a document you refer to as my
    “commission,” so-called,”

    I NEVER asked for his “commission so-called.”

    Is there any such thing?

    These are “trick” words.

    Always, always be on the lookout for “trick” words.

    I particularly asked for a copy of his commission and NOTHING ELSE.

    The second paragraph is about the “oath of office” but guess what?

    Why is he mentioning the “oath of office” when I NEVER asked for it?

    Furthermore, why would I ask for his “oath of office” when it is a “secondary” process?

    He must have an office to begin with before he can take an oath to the office.

    How can there be an “oath of office” when he does not even possess an office to start with without a commission?

    How can one take an “oath” to a non-existent office?

    Is there something mentally wrong with Mr. Mullen?

    I do have to wonder, and it does appear that way, doesn’t it?

    Mr. Mullen continues: “ln addition, the Governor and the Secretary of State issue a certificate to each appointed judge or justice.”

    Really?

    The Governor and the Secretary do NOT issue “certificates” to genuine constitutional (original) judges.

    Did I ask for his “certificate?”

    Absolutely not!

    Nowhere in the original said constitution does it say anything about a “certificate.”

    It specifically speaks about a “commission” in Article IX, Section 3, and it has 4 components.

    Additionally, a commission is under seal and a certificate is not.

    What is Mr. Mullen up to when he mentions the word “certificate?”

    Once again, is there something mentally wrong with Mr. Mullen whereby he speaks about items in his response to my Freedom of Access request that I NEVER asked for?

    Is there something wrong mentally with Mr. Mullen? I do have to ask.

    Am I the only one seeing this?

    Let me know what you think. Love to hear from you all.

    Mr. Mullen continues to say: “Because (l) the Constitution appears to distinguish between persons who are elected, appointed and commissioned, and (2) judicial officers, other than elected probate
    judges, are appointed, not commissioned, it is not clear to me that the certificate issued to me is the “commission” that you seek.”

    Is this guy joking?

    What is wrong with Mr. Mullen?

    Examine number 2.

    He is admitting that “judicial officers, ………, are appointed, not commissioned,”

    Wow!

    What a revelation!

    Mr. LaVerdiere and Mr. Mullen both admit that judicial officers are not commissioned but ONLY appointed.

    Isn’t this something?

    There it is for all to see for themselves.

    Aren’t you happy by now that I sent these documents to Dottie to post on her blog?

    An appointment does not “vest an office, a public office, and ONLY a commission accomplishes that.

    Without a commission both Mr. LaVerdiere and Mr. Mullen are impostors.

    Wow!

    No commission = no office = no judicial powers = no immunity = cannot hear any causes – cannot fine anyone = cannot jail anyone = cannot issue court orders = mere employee of the codified state = administrator to enforce the “will” of the codified state and NOT the “will” of the people as a whole.

    Am I justified in JUST calling these men “Mr.” and not “judge?”

    I believe so.

    None of these men have ever sent me a copy of my request which is a “commission.”

    Why is that?

    Because it doesn’t exist.

    How can they send me something that does not exist?

    They cannot so they use trickery in order to “hide” behind their fraud and treason against the people.

    By the way, both Mr. LaVerdiere and Mr. Mullen signed those documents.

    Thank you!

    Let me know what you all think. Love to hear from you.

    Lise from Maine

  3. Hi!

    In regards to Mr. Glessner’s response regarding Mr. Mullen’s lack of having a commission, here is what is wrong with his response:

    1. My Freedom of Access request was pursuant to Title 1, Chapter 13, Section 408-A and NOT to 5 M.R.S. $ 401 et. seq as Mr. Glessner stated.

    2. I NEVER asked to inspect or get a copy of Mr. Mullen’s “certificate.”

    3. I asked for Mr. Mullen’s “commission” ONLY. A big difference between the two documents.

    4. Mr. Mullen’s “certificate” does NOT meet the requirements of Article IX, Section 3 as Mr. Glessner mentions in his response. The said Article refers ONLY to the “commission” (see the original Constitution of the State of Maine, Article IX, Section 3). Nothing in that article says anything about a certificate.

    5. Mr. Glessner mentions the “judicial branch,” and it is NOT called a branch but it is called the “judicial department.”

    6. Genuine constitutional (original) judges are commissioned judicial officers. They do NOT have “certificates.” Commissions are under seal of the state, and “certificates” are NOT under seal. Commissions “vest an office, a public office, and a “certificate” does NOT “vest an office, a public office.

    7. I NEVER sent Mr. Glessner a Freedom of Access request asking for Mr. Mullen’s commission. It is the responsibility of Mr. Mullen to respond to my Freedom of Access requests and NOT Mr. Glessner.

    Mr. Glessner has obviously lied in his response to me.

    Lastly, he states that I can call if I have any questions. Why would I call him? I NEVER sent him a Freedom of Access request regarding Mr. Mullen’s commission or should I say “lack of it.”

    Thank you!

    Love to hear from all of you.

    Lise from Maine

  4. Hi!

    What is wrong with Mr. Mullen’s “certificate?”

    First of all, it says: “reposing special trust in the integrity, ability and discretion of ROBERT E. MULLEN of WATERVILLE.”

    Why is the word “discretion” mentioned?

    In the “older” commission it says nothing about “discretion.”

    It says: “reposing special trust and confidence in the integrity, ability and learning of Leslie C. Cornish (1907 commission).”

    Take particular notice of the word “confidence” and the words “learning of.”

    It is obvious that someone has ‘confidence” in Judge Cornish as it relates to integrity, ability and the learning of the said judge. The “learning of” is knowing and understanding the “common law,” the people’s law.

    Does Mr. Mullen know anything about the common law? How could he since it is no longer taught in law schools (see the 100 years booklet of the Maine State Bar Association – 1891 – 1991 posted on this blog). Since he doesn’t know anything about the common law, then it follows that Mr. Mullen did not participate in the “learning of” the common law and guess what?

    He has “discretion” instead.

    What jurisdictions does Mr. Mullen have as it relates to “discretion?”

    You got it.

    It is equity, admiralty, maritime, military, commerce and administrative.

    He is nothing more than a “mere” employee of the codified state enforcing the “will” of the state and NOT the “will” of the people.

    Under the common law the judge has NO discretion whatsoever because the original Constitution of the State of Maine “guarantees” a trial by jury, the people’s power, for “all” criminal and civil causes, and the judge is bound by the jury’s verdict.

    In the above-mentioned jurisdictions the “mere” employee has “full” discretion to decide a cause. Genuine, commissioned judges were NEVER given such authority to decide causes. If a “mere” employees employs the trial by jury, then the jury’s verdict is ONLY “advisory” and the “mere” employee is NOT bound by the jury’s verdict.

    By the way, there is NO trial by jury in the state-wide MAINE DISTRICT COURTS.

    A trial by jury is obtained in the SUPERIOR COURTS only but it is a trial by jury of the government whereby jurors have “driver’s licenses” (driver is a commercial term) for the most part and all potential jurors MUST fill out a questionnairem and if the “mere” employee does not like some of the answers, then that potential juror is “kicked off” the list of potential jurors.

    This is a classic case of a trial by jury of the government and NOT of the people.

    When one enters these “fake” courts today, you will NOT see a “seal” of the court but rather you will see a “flag.” Flags do NOT belong in constitutional, common law courts. They have a particular “seal” of “that” court.

    The certificate further states: “has nominated and the Legislature has confirmed your appointment as….”

    The Legislature has NO authority under the “original” said constitution to confirm an appointment of a judge.

    In Article V- Part First – Executive Power, section 8 it states: He [Governor] shall nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Council, appoint all judicial officers, the Attorney GeneraI, the Sheriffs, Coroners, Registers of Probate, and Notaries Public ; and ……..”

    This is the job of the Executive Department originally – Governor and Council (Council disappeared in 1976).

    This was “stolen” by the Legislature from the Executive Department by the fraudulent 1855 Resolve. NO department has a right to interfere into another department since they are all equal.

    Furthermore, what is wrong with the supposed seal? Why are there “two” so-called seals on the certificate?

    A genuine commission has ONLY one seal.

    The so-called seal on the lower left hand corner is nothing more than a “sticker” and is NOT a genuine seal of the state (original). The seal on the top of the document is not the actual seal of the original State of Maine. A genuine seal is an “impression” on a document and cannot be peeled off.

    Lastly, I have personally gone to the Secretary of State’s office and requested “commissions” of various so-called judges but was told that there aren’t any in that office. Instead, I was offered an “oath of office” that I NEVER asked for.

    All for now.

    Enjoy the education.

    Love to hear from you.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  5. Hi!

    Correction:

    In the 1855 resolve the Legislature of Maine unlawfully “expanded” its powers by “using’ the electors to do their dirty work.

    Keep in mind that Section 8 as above-mentioned states “all” judicial officers.

    The 1855 resolve under its illegal passage allowed the people (another unlawful expansion of power) to elect probate judges, sheriffs, registers of probate, and land agents (now gone). This resolve allowed the people (electors) an expansion of power to elect these officers but that is an Executive Department function, and it was “stolen” from that Department.

    All of this is unlawful.

    Did anyone object to this from the Executive Department?

    In the original Constitution of the State of Maine it states in Article VI, Section 3: “They [Justices] shall be obliged to give their opinion upon important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions, when required by the Governor, Council, Senate or House of Representatives.”

    Did the members of the Council and the Governor “ask a question of law” regarding the unlawful 1855 Resolve?

    Since it passed unlawfully, then it is reasonable to believe that “no one” asked a question of law to the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court (not the Maine Supreme Court which is a state-wide court enforcing the “will” of the codified state) “of” the State of Maine.

    The Founding Fathers of Maine placed Section 3 in the Judicial Department as a “remedy” in the event that someone needed to inquire about legal matters. They were well aware that this remedy would be needed from time to time and did not leave the public officers stranded without a remedy.

    This was a smart move on their part.

    The Legislature now elected the Attorney General under this resolve which is a fraud. The said Legislature has no delegation of authority to elect the AG as that is an Executive Department function, and also has no authority to interfere and “steal” from another Department.

    In 1976 when the Council will eliminated unlawfully, the Legislature then “expanded” it powers unlawfully once again and would “accept or reject” a nomination of judicial officers by the Governor by confirming or not confirming the nomination. That is not the business of the Legislature.

    Mr. Mullen’s “certificate” states: “has nominated and the Legislature has confirmed your appointment as….”

    This is an obvious fraud.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine


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: