Phil Merletti Commentary on “A System In Crisis” – Judicial Confirmation Hearing of William J. Schneider

update – 

April 16, 2014
Governor’s Office

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, April 16
Contact: Adrienne Bennett, Press Secretary, 207-287-2531

AUGUSTA – Governor Paul R. LePage administered the oath Tuesday to Judge William Schneider of the Maine District Court. Read more HERE.   Judge Schneider

“A System In Crisis”, view HERE. (Opposition to nomination begins at 46:14)

03/15/14

To all,

“On the 11th of March, Dottie LaFortune and I attended a public hearing at the Maine State Capital. The committee providing the public hearing was the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee member’s task was to hear public testimony to the creditability of those Lawyers who were nominated by Governor LePage to be appointed and confirmed Judges.

The Public hearing’s procedure was, to witness those who where in favor of the appointment and confirmation of each nominee. The first hour of this hearing depicts the favoritism and camaraderie of other lawyers; judges and friends who never provided anything evidence more than verbal lip service.

Both Ms. LaFortune and I gave evidence proving that ex-Attorney General William Schneider refused to acknowledge the receipt of evidence mailed to his office and that he refused to log in our request for proper investigations concerning our evidence. The evidence that Ms. LaFortune and I produced showed that future requests were also ignored. The evidence that Ms. LaFortune and I produced also showed that the named persons in the evidence packages were also known friends to the ex-Attorney General. This alone would have given “reason for doubt” in anyone’s minds who read the evidence. All lawyers know the value of written statements and Attorney General William Schneider knew that if he acknowledged our request in writing, he would have had to not only follow through with the investigation, but he would also have to report his friends as criminals in fraudulent and unconstitutional actions.

There was one more element in the act of ignoring the evidence and refusal to engage an investigation. Birds of a feather fly together. The persons recorded in the request were fellow Republican Leaders. If the public and other Republicans were to find out that their leaders were involved in “Voter Fraud” and Unconstitutional activities to prevent people from their right as U.S. and Maine people from voting, the top three leaders, Charles Webster, Charles Summers and Andrea Cushing would be removed from their positions and be found guilty as charged.

It is time for the Maine people to see how the Legislators conduct their own actions of ignoring public presentations of written evidence and how they believe in their own favoritism of fellow legislators and Lawyers. Please click on to the following link called “A System in Crisis” and watch this travesty of public trust. The first hour of verbal descriptions was to convince the Judiciary Committee that Ex-Attorney General Schneider can walk on water, is incredibly boring, but the attention should become more interesting as Ms. Fortune and I layout the truth.

One word of caution, be ready to feel betrayed as the Judiciary Committee imitates the same behavior of the Attorney General William Schneider and ignores the written evidence and throws any doubt to the wind. The Committee members in total vote in favor of allowing an Ex-Attorney General to become a Judge who just may repeat his past actions and ignore what he wishes and play favoritism and crony politics for whom ever he wishes.

Please catch the phrase that Senator Burns uses to acknowledge his favoritism for Attorney General Schneider, he says, “a resounding yes!”.”

“A System In Crisis”, view HERE. (Opposition to nomination begins at 46:14)

Phil Merletti

“Note #1. This was an observation that I had when Ms. Fortune started using the words crime and fraud in her presentation. All of the lawyers and legislators that gave a verbal presentation in behalf of Ex-Attorney General Schneider quickly got out of their chairs and made it outside, where they stayed until I finished my presentation. I thought that the exodus was quite odd, but after discussing this event, I was told that Lawyers and public officials who are knowledgeable of a crime and they willfully ignore it or fail to report the crime, it can amount to the offense in itself.

Note #2. We are looking into the fact that three Judiciary Committee members that received and viewed the evidence that Ms. Fortune and I submitted did not ask for recess for a discussion to not confirm Schneider until the evidence could be proven. These three Committee Members are not only Legislative Public Officials, they are trusted to not put questionable people on the bench. I say this because they are also Lawyers and they did not question the fact that they are now in position of the same evidence that Attorney General had received. This evidence is the same evidence that Schneider willfully ignored and showed favor to his friends who were also in the same political party! We are at present time investigating their ignorance of their responsibility to act accordingly

Excepts from Dottie and Tim

In nearly all justice systems, the main firepower is reserved for the lead offender in a crime; however, those who help that person escape punishment by concealing facts are not forgotten. Under the American system, failure to report a crime can amount to an offense in itself,

Accessory After the Fact

One of the most basic reporting charges is accessory after the fact, broadly defined as someone who helps or hides a criminal trying to avoid getting caught.

Obstruction of Justice

Another key concept, obstruction of justice, applies more directly to public officials, who may be charged for perverting justice.

Perjury

Perjury exemplifies the basic legal standard that may come into play for not reporting a crime–whether by omission or lying under oath in a court.”

Related:  Aroostook Watchmen with Guest Phil Merletti on Confirmation Hearing of William Schneider For Judgeship, click here.

Maine Governor Lepage Nominates Former AG William Schneider For Judgeship, click here.

Maine Judiciary Committee – Confirmation Hearing – William J. Schneider to the Maine District Court, click here.

Research has revealed that Maine judges must be commissioned…and they are not! No commission = no oath of office = no judicial power, click here.

For more information on this subject type in “Lise from Maine” in the search section of this blog. Lots of information and discussion in the comments section.

Advertisements
Published in: on March 15, 2014 at 6:36 pm  Comments (7)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/phil-merletti-commentary-on-a-system-in-crisis-judicial-confirmation-hearing-of-william-j-schneider/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Dot& Phil: I had occasion to go before this committee in the nineties, I had to get their permission to sue the wonderful STATE OF MAINE I presented my testimony with the whole committee there one appeared to be listening, I turned from the podium took maybe two steps the vote was called and taken before getting back to my seat, of course it was a unanimous NO, to say the least I was not surprised.
    Richard

    • This committee is a “theater in the round.” They hold hearings to give the impression they are really working hard for the people. They a “Post Turtles” who are lawbreakers.

      Do they really think we believe their insanity?

  2. Hi!

    By what authority can the legislature hold public hearings (Title 3, Section 157) regarding the acceptance or rejection of judicial candidates?

    None at all.

    The legislature has NO lawful authority to be involved in selecting judges.

    That is an Executive department function.

    In the “original’ constitution in Article V, Section 8 it states in part:

    “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 ……………”

    It says what it says and means what it means.

    It says “nominate and appoint” with the advice and consent of the Council” ALL judicial officers (not some judicial officers).

    NOTHING is said about the legislature being involved in this.

    The legislature “expanded” their powers unlawfully when they got “rid” of the Council in 1976. They had NO delegation of authority to destroy the Council.

    This is fraud and treason.

    They are NOT allowed to do this as they “interfered” into another distinct department and “stole” the powers of the Executive department.

    In the “original” constitution in Article III, Section 1 it states: “The powers of this Government shall be divided into three distinct Departments, the Legislative, Executive and the Judicial.”

    Notice what it says.

    It says “the powers” which means that each distinct department has different powers and belongs to a certain department.

    What does “distinct” mean?

    In dictionary.com it states the definition of “distinct” in part: “Distinguished as not being the same; not identical; separate; different in nature or quality; dissimilar.”

    Is this definition regarding “distinct” clear enough?

    Yes, it is.

    Each department is different having different powers, and none of the other departments can “steal” powers from the other departments.

    In other words, they each have different functions, and that is to “prevent” tyranny from one department such as the legislature is doing today.

    Lastly, the legislature has committed many, many frauds over time, and I can prove it.

    Thank you!

    Love to hear from you.

    Lise from Maine

  3. These people don’t want to uphold their obligations, they are there for their own personal gain.

    Those least uneducated/uninformed depend on other puppets to lead them down the wrong path.

    These people don’t want to listen. We’ve tried to bring Lise’s research to this committee prior to any confirmation of judges and we were shut down. Setting that aside, they are not even concerned about the violations of their own laws that they created. These lawmakers are lawbreakers and must be removed. The voters in their districts must take action to replace these legislators who are harming everyone on this state. But they must keep an eye out at the polls….ballots are tampered with!

  4. Hi!

    On February 14, 1941 a “question of law” (see Article VI, Section 3) was asked of the justices of the supreme judicial court (not the original one) regarding the constitutional office of the Treasurer.

    Take notice that the Legislators do, indeed, know how to ask a “question of law” to the said justices.

    Did they ask a “question of law” pertaining to the fraudulent 1855 and 1875 resolves? I haven’t found yet, if it exist.

    Pay strict attention to the outcome of this case. It is long but it is very important to comprehend.

    Here is what the Legislators sent to the justices (137 Me. 350; 19 A.2d 53; (1941):

    “STATE OF MAINE IN SENATE, February 14, 1941.
    TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT:

    WHEREAS, it appears to the Senate of the 90th Legislature that the following are important questions of law and the occasion a solemn one, and

    WHEREAS, a Resolve has been introduced into the Senate entitled “Resolve Proposing Amendments to the Constitution Repealing the Constitutional Provisions Relating to the Office of Treasurer of State and Ratifying and Approving a Legislative Enabling Act Providing for
    Appointment of the Treasurer upon Approval of this Resolve” (a copy of which resolve marked Legislative Document 49 is herewith enclosed and made a part hereof) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
    Maine to remove therefrom all provisions relative to the election, tenure and qualifications of the treasurer of state, and

    WHEREAS, the amendment so proposed will be submitted to the people, if said resolve is finally passed, on the 2nd Monday in September next and, if accepted by them, will then become a part of the [***2] Constitution, and

    WHEREAS, in anticipation of the adoption of said Amendment a bill has been introduced into the Senate entitled “An Act Creating a Bureau of the Treasury and Assigning Certain Duties Thereto” (a copy of which act marked Legislative Document 46 is herewith enclosed and made a part hereof) under the terms of which the treasurer [*P351] of state is appointed by the commissioner of finance with the approval of the
    governor and council, and which act according to its terms is to become effective upon approval by the people of the aforesaid Resolve, and
    WHEREAS, it is important that the Legislature be informed as to the constitutionality of the proposed act, now therefore, be it
    ORDERED:

    That the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court are hereby requested to give to the Senate,according to the provisions of the Constitution on this behalf, their opinion on the following questions, to wit:

    QUESTION 1:

    Where the Constitution provides for the tenure of office, qualifications, and mode of election of a state officer but contains no express prohibition of legislation with regard to such tenure, qualifications or election, would it be a constitutional exercise of the legislative power to [***3] pass, concurrently with a resolve proposing an amendment to the constitution removing therefrom the provisions relative to the election, tenure of office and qualifications of such officer, an act providing a different mode of election and a different tenure of office, which act is not to become effective until and unless such resolve is adopted by the people?

    QUESTION 2:

    If the provisions for ratification of Legislative Document 46 were omitted from Legislative Document 49 and the act and resolve finally passed by the legislature and the resolve adopted by the people, would Legislative Document 46 then become effective according to its terms as a valid and constitutional exercise of the legislative power?

    QUESTION 3:

    If the legislature has not the power to pass the act set forth in Question 1 and the act is unconstitutional, can such unconstitutionally be cured by including in the resolve amending the Constitution as set forth in
    Question 1 an express provision ratifying and approving such act?

    [*P352] QUESTION 4:

    If Legislative Document 49 as now written were to be finally passed by the legislature and adopted by the people, would the provisions of Section 4 thereof cure any want of power in the [***4] legislature to pass
    Legislative Document 46 and make that act then effective as a valid law?

    In Senate Chamber

    Read and Passed.

    ROYDEN V. BROWN, Secretary

    February 14, 1941

    A true copy of Senate Order

    Attest: ROYDEN V. BROWN, Secretary.”

    “TO THE HONORABLE SENATE OF THE STATE
    OF MAINE:

    The undersigned Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, having considered the questions upon which their advisory opinions were requested by Senate Order of February 14, 1941, and understanding from the preamble and Legislative Documents submitted that the questions have reference to the office of Treasurer of State, respectfully submit the following answers.

    Question 1:

    [*P353] Answer 1:

    Article XXVII of the Amendments to the Constitution of Maine provides:
    “The treasurer shall be chosen biennially, at the first session of the
    legislature, by joint ballot of the Senators and Representatives in convention, but shall not be eligible more than six years successively.”
    [**55] It is, of course, well settled that legislative power is measured by-limitation, not by grant, and is absolute and all-embracing except as expressly or by necessary implication restricted by the Constitution.
    Sawyer v. Gilmore, 109 Me., 169, 180, 83 A. 673; Opinion of Justices, 132 Me., 519, 174 A. 845; Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 8th Ed., Vol. 1, Page 348. A prohibition by necessary implication is as effective as an express prohibition. We are of opinion that Article XXVII of the Amendments to the Constitution of Maine, clear and unambiguous in language, is mandatory and, by necessary implication, not only absolutely prohibits filling the office of State Treasurer by any method of selection not there prescribed, but is also a complete inhibition against the enactment of legislation to that end, even conditionally. Opinion of Justices, supra. [***6]

    This question is answered in the negative.

    Question 2:

    If the provisions for ratification of Legislative Document 46 were omitted from Legislative Document 49 and the act and resolve finally passed by the legislature and the resolve adopted by the people, would Legislative Document 46 then become effective according to its terms as a valid and constitutional exercise of the legislative power?

    Answer 2:

    We answer this question in the negative.

    Question 3:

    If the legislature has not the power to pass the act set forth in Question 1 and the act is unconstitutional, can such unconstitutionality [*P354] be cured by including in the resolve amending the Constitution as set forth in Question 1 an express provision ratifying mid approving such act?

    Answer 3:

    We answer this question in the negative.

    Question 4:

    If Legislative Document 49 as now written were to be finally passed by the legislature and adopted by the people, would the provisions of Section 4 thereof cure any want of power in the legislature to pass Legislative Document 46 and make that act then effective as a valid
    law?

    Answer 4:

    We answer this question in the negative.

    Very respectfully,

    GUY H. STURGIS
    JAMES H. HUDSON
    HARRY MANSER
    GEORGE H. WORSTER
    HAROLD [***7] H. MURCHIE

    Dated February 26, 1941.”

    Why is this case so important?

    First of all, here is what the original Constitution of the State of Maine states regarding the constitutional office of the Treasurer in Article V, Part Fourth:

    “SECT. 1. The Treasurer shall be chosen annually, at the
    first session of the Legislature, by joint ballot of the Senators,
    and Representatives in Convention, but shall not be eligible
    more than five years successively.

    SECT. 2. The Treasurer shall, before entering on the
    duties of his office, give bond to the State with sureties, to
    the satisfaction of the Legislature, for the faithful discharge of
    his trust.

    SECT. 3. The Treasurer shall not, during his continuance in office, engage in any business of trade or commerce, or as a broker, nor as an agent or factor for any merchant or trader.

    SECT. 4. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury,
    but by warrant from the Governor and CouncIl, and in consequence
    of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money, shall be published at the commencement of the annual session of the Legislature.”
    Remember that the Treasurer’s office is a constitutional office and NOT a statutory office controlled by the Legislature.

    Issues in this case:

    1. This resolve would require the “appointment” of the Treasurer as opposed to being elected by the Legislature and “remove therefrom all provisions relative to the election, tenure and qualifications of the treasurer of state.”

    2.In “anticipation” of the adoption of this resolve (they were getting ahead of themselves) the legislators created a “statutory” Bureau of the Treasury (an inferior office controlled by the Legislature) whereby the Treasurer would be “appointed” by commissioner of finance with the approval of the Governor and the Council.

    Questions to ponder on:

    Does the Legislature have a right lawfully to “interfere” into another distinct department (see Article III, Section 1)?

    No, it does not.

    Does the Legislature have a right lawfully to “weaken” another distinct department?

    No, it does not.

    Does the Legislature have a right lawfully to “take away” conditions prescribed by the constitution in a distinct department and “give it” to a statutory officer and especially to someone in a statutory office such as the commissioner of finance?

    No, it does not.

    A statutory office and a statutory officer are “inferior” to a constitutional office and a constitutional officer.

    Are these legislators stupid?

    No, not really. They have a need for power and control such as tyrants and dictators do.

    Does the Legislature have the right lawfully to “control” the Treasurer who operates out of the Executive department, a constitutional office?

    No, it cannot.

    Can the Legislature “expand” its powers lawfully by “taking away” powers of another distinct department and “give it” to themselves,
    the legislators?

    No, it cannot.

    If the legislators are allowed this fraud and treason, then they can just make other so-called laws and change whatever they want to suit their needs.

    The Founding Fathers never allowed this in the original constitution.
    The justices of the supreme judicial court disagreed with the legislators on ALL the questions posed to them.

    It is a constitutional office, and it cannot be “reduced” to a statutory office, and cannot be under the control of a statutory officer, the commissioner of finance, who operates in a statutory office.

    Isn’t this insane for the legislators to attempt this?

    Yes indeed!

    They are acting as tyrants and dictators; they want all the power and control.

    Now let’s go back to the 1855 and 1875 resolves.

    Can the Legislature “expand” its powers by “taking away” powers of another department and creating a “codified” state under the roman civil law as opposed to the common law as the constitution follows?

    No, it cannot.

    All fraud and treason.

    If this is too complicated to understand for some of you, just read it at least twice or more times.

    Learn to make “connections” and it will be much easier to see the fraud and treason.

    Hope I didn’t overwhelm anyone since I have a tendency to do this.

    All for now.

    Thank you!

    Love to hear from you.

    Lise from Maine

  5. Thank you for enlightening me Lise!

  6. Hi Doug,

    You are very welcome.

    It is quite an “eye” opener.

    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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: