Commission of Leslie Cornish, Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Maine (1907)

Courtesy of Lise from Maine

View Commission HERE.


Published in: on February 13, 2014 at 11:29 am  Comments (11)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

11 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hi!

    In Article IX, section 3 in the “original” Constitution of the State of Maine it states: “All commissions shall be in the name of the State, signed by the Governor, attested by the Secretary or his deputy, and have the seal of the State thereto affixed.”

    Take particular notice what it “doesn’t say (my rule in and rule out methodology).”

    It doesn’t say “All certificates shall be in the name of the State, etc.”

    It doesn’t say “All appointments shall be in the name of the State, etc.”

    It says particularly “all commissions.”

    That is very important to understand.

    Does Justice Cornish’s commission meet the criteria of Article IX, section 3?

    Yes, it does.


    1. It is in the name of the State.
    2. It is signed by the Governor.
    3. It attested by the Secretary.
    4. It has the seal of the State.

    Furthermore, a commission is a “letters patent.”

    In Justice Cornish’s commission it states in part: “In Testimony whereof, we have causes these letters to be make patent, etc.”

    What is the function of a commission? It provides the justice with:

    1. A title; he is called Associate Justice.
    2. He was vested an office, a public office – The Supreme Judicial
    Court “of” the State of Maine (emphasis is mine). It is NOT called
    Maine Supreme Judicial Court since that one is a state-wide fake
    3. He receives judicial powers.
    4. He receives immunity; in the event that he makes a mistake, the
    people have a remedy to go to a higher court.
    5. He must perform duties of that office according to law.
    6. He receives compensation for this work performed.
    7. He can be impeached; not so with a “mere” employee.

    Remember, what the Chief Judge of the Maine District Court said in his response to me regarding my Freedom of Access request (FOA) as it relates to Title 1, Chapter 13, Section 408-A?

    He said that the judges are “appointed” not commissioned.

    What did he admit to?

    That there aren’t any commissioned judges operating here in Maine. In other words, there are imposters and are “mere” employees of this “codified” state.

    That letter is on this forum.

    See also the letters on this forum from Robert E. Mullen, deputy chief judge of the Maine District Court and the law clerk’s letter – Pollack – also admitting that judges are appointed and not commissioned.

    What did they admit to?

    You got it. They are fakes.

    Type in “Lise from Maine” in the upper right hand corner in the search box in order to locate those letters on this forum.

    Now think about the 1963 Resolve that is on this forum that changed the landscape of the “judicial power,” and the fact that no commissioned judged operate in Maine.

    What do you think about that?

    All for now.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  2. Hi!

    The Chief Judge of the Maine District Court is Charles LaVerdiere.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  3. Lise from Maine: I read the 1963 Resolve in section: 5 No Justice of the supreme judicial court or any other court shall hold office under the united states or any other state , nor under this state, except as justice of the peace or as member of the judicial council.
    Q. Lise: am I reading this right? that the appointment as a supreme justice is nothing more than an appointment as a justice of the peace and/or an appointment to a council?
    Richard Wayne: Kane

  4. Hi Richard,

    Great question and involves a great deal of thinking and analysis.

    So glad that you asked it.

    Here is my take on this.

    The first thing that I want to address is the fact that the Legislature had NO delegation of authority to “repeal” the judicial power and create a proposed amendment to “replace” the judicial power so, therefore, this whole fraudulent amendment is fraud and treason.

    The Legislature has NO authority to “interfere” into another department since each department is distinct from each other and have different functions and duties, and the justices should have been “screaming from the rooftops” about this but did they? Apparently not since it passed unlawfully.

    Furthermore, the office of Justice of the Peace was abolished fraudulently by that 1977 resolve which went into effect in 1978.

    Section 5 (1963) reads: ” No justice of the Supreme Judicial Court or any other court shall hold office under the United States or any other state nor under this State, EXCEPT AS (emphasis is mine) justice of the peace or as member of the Judicial Council.”

    The original Constitution of the State of Maine states: “SECT. 4. All Judicial officers, except Justices of the Peace, shall hold their offices during good behavior, but not beyond the age of seventy years.

    SECT. 5. Justices of the Peace and Notaries Public, shall hold their offices during seven years if they so long behave themselves well, at the expiration of which term, they may be reappointed or others appointed, as the public interest may require.

    SECT. 6. The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court shall hold no office under the United States, nor any State, nor any other office under this state, EXCEPT THAT OF Justice of the Peace.”

    TAKE NOTICE of the different words used in the 1963 resolve and the original constitution.

    Section 5 (1963) says EXCEPT AS and the original constitution says

    What is the difference in meaning?

    In the original constitution as I understand this is that it is ONLY the Justice of the Peace that can hold more than one office at the same time (in 1820 there were NO other courts established yet). It was clear that the Justice of the Peace office was distinguished from the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court (two different offices).

    In the “revamp” judicial power “justice of the peace” is NOT capitalized as the original Justice of the Peace office is so is this speaking about the office of Justice of the Peace?


    So the ONLY WAY (1963) to enter an office of the U.S., office of any other state, nor under this state is to be a “justice of the peace” (no capital letters J and P) ONLY or be a member of the Judicial council.

    Sounds to me like a “lower” status and NOT an office.

    Notice also that there is NO mention of distinguishing between the office of the Supreme Judicial Court and the office of Justice of the Peace (two distinct offices) in this 1963 resolve.

    Why is that?

    A Justice of the Peace office has a “limited” jurisdiction based on the monetary value of the case but the office of the Supreme Judicial Court was NOT a court of “limited” jurisdiction.

    This 1963 resolve completely “wiped out” the original Supreme Judicial Court and created an “inferior” one – not supreme anymore.

    My take on this.

    I welcome other thoughts on this subject matter.

    Wow! My thinking really went into “high gear” on this one.

    Am I wrong or am I right?

    What do you think?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  5. Lise: I understand the legislature was/is in violation the issue to me that I will need to address in a case shortly involves an “ORDER” issued by a so-called justice (BOGUS) I will need to establish his authority or lack of authority in doing so, if they are operating under this 1963 action that looks like good ammo to attack him with.
    What do you think?

  6. Lise; Neil tells me you Richard and others are going to disgusta to talk about the low lives being nominated by Lepage on the 25 the order I mentioned was issued by Andrew Mead one of the bums in question 20 years ago for a long time I did not know what to do about it I knew it was/is bogus a few years ago I accepted it for value returned for proof of claim and noticed if he failed to answer I would provide the answers for him he failed I provided gave him time to respond no answer I sent him a true bill for damages he did not respond I had a Notary send a Notary protest to him he did not respond he now owes me $4,440,000.00 collect it for me when you see that ASS-HOLE
    thank You

  7. Hi Richard,

    No presentation took place yesterday. Reps were too busy with their own agendas.

    No person by the name of Richard was in attendance that I know of.

    Furthermore, there is NO original constitutional state since the fraudulent resolve of 1875, no county courts (state-wide courts only), within and for the county, (local control) since the fake law of 1929, no commissioned judges, and no Juries selected by the people since 1935. Juries are selected by the government to ensure a conviction – a trial by jury of the government rather than a trial by jury of the vicinity and of his peers (see Art. 1, sec 6 and 20).

    Your chances of winning in these fake courts is nil.

    Suggestion: Stay out of them as much as possible.

    Additionally, that 1963 resolve regarding the “judicial power” is an absolute fraud. How can the Legislature just “repeal” an entire judicial department, then replace it and for what purpose?

    Appears to me to be a “lower status” of the entire judicial power.

    Conclusion: There is NOTHING lawful today. All fraud and treason.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  8. Hi Richard,

    Read the 2009 handbook called the Traverse Jury Handbook and see plenty of fraud in it. Go to any search engine and find it.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  9. Lise: I was making reference to the meeting coming up tue. I already knew your servants were to busy to listen you slaves to the public servants.

  10. Hi Richard,

    They act and behave like “masters” on the state’s plantation rather than servants.

    Servants “serve” while masters “dictate.”

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  11. Hi!

    Additionally, where is the delegation of authority for the Legislature to “interfere” into another department such as repealing the entire judicial power and replacing it?

    None exist, and each department is a distinct department with different functions and duties.

    This is an outright “expansion” of power on the part of the Legislature which is a pattern that I have seen over and over and over again in my research.

    This is fraud and treason.

    The most interesting part is that NO ONE in the other departments are acting as “rivals” but instead “cooperate” with each other. I have seen this over and over and over again in my research, too.

    A just and free government is maintained when the public servants act as “rivals” and keep the “fight” going until they back off when someone from another department is attempting to expand their own powers.

    An example is that 1855 resolve when the Legislature “stole” the attorney general office from the Executive department as well as “stole” the ability of the Governor with the advice and consent of the Council to appoint the sheriffs and all judicial officers. This is an “interference” into another distinct department.

    No one said anything so, therefore, this fraudulent resolve went to the vote of the electors. The Legislature possesses no delegation of authority to “fool” the electors into voting for a fraudulent resolve.

    In turn, the electors didn’t seem to question the lawfulness or unlawfulness of this resolve as well as the Selectmen of the towns and Assessors of the various plantations.

    No one asked a “question of law” (see Article VI, Sec. 3) to the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court.

    As they say: “Silence is golden.”

    This is “how” a just and free government of the people, by the people and for the people is turned upside down where “centralization” of power comes from the top-down as opposed to bottom-up from the people themselves.

    All for now.

    Your thoughts?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: