Source: Falmouth Today

August 13, 2014
By Editor

“Early the morning of the 6th our reporter was asked to record a pre-trial conference and to provide recording services of what was said at the bench, for the Defendant, who is representing herself in divorce proceedings with her husband, a lawyer, and is requesting money so she can hire a lawyer.

It seems the act of walking to the bench to place the recording device at a location that would allow the Rule 76H to actually be effective, was considered by Judge Kelly to be ‘advocating’ for a party to the case.

You can hear Judge Kelly admonish the reporter on the audio link, click here.

Perhaps if everyone coming to court recorded for themselves what was being said, the conduct of lawyers and judges might improve to the point the amount of lying would be reduced to a manageable amount. One Judge, in another case, opined that if a lawyer didn’t consider what he was doing was a conflict of interest, he had no need to disclose the ‘potential’ conflict to the client. WHAT? Wouldn’t you like to have a recording of that judge? In this case the Defendant relates that during this recording the Plaintiff’s lawyer was less than ‘accurate’. Now that victims are aware of Rule 76H we wonder how long it will be after victims of lawyers and courts start using the Rule, before it will be removed from the Rules of Civil Procedures.

We’re told by sources in the courthouse that “Victim Advocates” practice more law in the courtroom than a reporter doing a favor for a Pro Se victim of the Family Court System does by providing an audio recording device to assure the Defendant can have their own unadulterated version of what transpired.

Our Maine courts get a D+ or an F depending on the rating service used.”

Published in: on August 27, 2014 at 4:52 pm  Comments (3)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/judge-mary-kelly-accuses-reporter-of-attempting-to-practice-law/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. when i used MRCivP Rule 76H in my criminal proceedings in Kennebec County Superior Court (which were eventually dismissed because of my own legal advocacy), i was sternly informed by the judge that the “court rules” (not MRCivP) prohibited any audio and video recording WITHOUT PERMISSION BY THE JUDGE. the judge took the time to have that “rule” printed and mailed to me via postal mail… i’ve not yet challenged that violation of my rights…

  2. “Every Judge is a good Judge – when they are being watched” Robert A. Heinlein

  3. Hi!

    I recently learned that someone,who shall be nameless, was critical of my new book “Where Did The Original Constitutional State Go? by Lise Dupont whereby he said that it did not contain “remedies.”

    Is this guy crazy to suggest that I give “remedies?’

    He knew all along that I would NOT provide remedies because I did not want to be accused of practicing law without a license.

    Is he crazy?

    I want to avoid at all cost entering “their” fake courts with “fake” judges presiding in them with NO trial by jury of his peers but ONLY a trial by jury of the government and be accused of practicing law without a license.

    No way!

    I seek to stay out of their “fake” courts.

    My book was written with the “sole purpose” of educating the general public on what we DO NOT HAVE as it relates to “this” state, no county courts, no commissioned judges, and no trial by jury of his peers and more.

    I am NOT a fool after all.

    Maybe this guy is.

    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: