The “Brief” Dispute Between Maine Governor Paul LePage and Attorney General Janet Mills

Talkshoe Radio (February 4, 2015) – Discussion on Governor Paul LePages’s Request For Opinion of the Justices With Phil Merletti and Lise DuPont, Author of “Where Did The Original Constitutional State Go?” Click here.

Attorney General Janet Mills Asks The Maine Supreme Judicial Court Not To Take Action On Governor Paul LePage’s Questions, click here.

Documents:

Recording of oral argument on February 26, 2015

OPINION OF THE JUSTICES

Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/the-brief-dispute-between-maine-governor-paul-lepage-and-attorney-general-janet-mills/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

47 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hi All,

    Read the various briefs regarding Governor LePage’s “question of law” pertaining to Article 6, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Maine which is ONLY “advisory” and NOT adversarial.

    Read the 4 constitutionalists’ brief (one brief) which is quite educational
    in itself.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  2. Lise: This is very interesting, the make believe justice/judge asked input
    from “persons or entities” both legal fictions as you should know, now once the BRIEF is entered by legal entities is the make believe justice/judge under any obligation to respond to said BRIEF, further is the make believe justice/judge under any obligation to even read said BRIEF, or can it just be treated like any other piece of toilet paper?

    For all the headway being made involving the make believe courts you know the answer to that, so look out septic system.

  3. We know how the courts/Maine government operate in violation of the original constitution. Any and all attempts – by any group – to restore common law and common law courts has failed. With this door opening it did achieve one important thing, IMO, and that is A.G. Janet Mills admits in her brief to common law powers/authority. Now are people going to sit back and complain or do their part to hold her accountable in upholding the common law.

    • The ATTORNY GENERAL is a BAR CARD HOLDER, FOREIGN AGENT, Sworn allegiance to a FOREIGN POWER, holding her office in CORPORATE status with no obligation to you or anyone outside the CORPORATION, taking orders from the BAR assoc. if you think she is going to open a common law court for the people your dreaming, and again you entered their court as a legal entity
      fiction NO STANDING as a Man/Woman common law and no authority to “hold her accountable”, abolishing her corporate office and filling the real AG’s office with a de jure officer, then maybe common law.
      What you talk about as our govt. IS NOT our govt. it is a CORPORATION we/you have no governor Lepage is the CEO of the corporation STATE of MAINE, lets call it what it is, a lot of uninformed people need things spelled out as they are.

  4. Hi!

    There isn’t any constitutional (original) State of Maine operating today.

    There aren’t any constitutional courts operating in Maine. They are all
    “administrative.”

    There aren’t any commissioned justices operating in Maine.

    None at all.

    There aren’t any trial by juries of his peers since 1935. When summoned to court, everyone has to fill out a questionnaire, and if the government doesn’t like what you revealed, you’re out.

    Isn’t this nice?

    We have a trial by jury of the government.

    Does anyone think that this “codified, statutory and fraudulent state” is going to “give up” their power easily?

    If so, you are kidding yourself.

    So why not try something new and different?

    Like filing a brief into the “administrative” supreme judicial court and just see what happens.

    Force a position(s) and let the justices (the fake ones) know that some of us out here know things.

    Will they like it?

    Most likely not.

    Remember, Article 6, Section 3 is advisory ONLY, and the Chief Justice committed a crime when she converted it into an adversarial situation.

    She didn’t follow the constitution as stated.

    What else can she do but commit crimes?

    Of course, she cannot follow a lawful constitution since she operates in the “administrative” state.

    Got that, folks?

    By the way, examine Rod Class’ docket sheet regarding his case in the City of Washington. Look at his filings that were denied. What did he raise in his filings? Listen to his shows and find out. Some people think he is a “hero.”

    Do we want to do a similar thing here in Maine?

    Absolutely not!

    Raising the “corporate” names such as LISE, PHIL, DOTTIE, and JACK will fail most likely?

    They would not give us the time of day.

    So why risk it?

    We are “forcing” some issues.

    Why not try it and see what happens?

    Why not?

    Some of us KNOW the fraud and treason going on here in Maine, and the four of us do even though someone called us “these people” in a derogatory tone and said that we were “dumbed down” like the kids.

    Is he kidding us?

    Is he stupid?

    Who is the “dumbed down” one?

    Come on! Be open-minded, will you?

    Go ahead!

    Try something new and different and see what happens.

    I dare you!

    You know who you are, and I don’t appreciate being called names.

    Some people enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing and enjoy being agitators.

    It is “circular” reasoning when arguing with such people. It goes round and round and round and get no where.

    The four of us are trying something new and different even though Article 6, Section 3 says NOTHING about the “people” being involved nor the attorney general.

    A violation of Article 6, Section 3?

    Yes, of course, but we accepted the Chief Justice’s (fake one) invitation
    to force issues and to see what happens.

    I am eager to find out what these “fake” justices do. If nothing, then so be it. At least we attempted to do something about the issues raised.

    Go read it yourself (Article 6, Section 3).

    I will say it once again.

    We know. We know.

    We know that there aren’t any constitutional courts and commissioned justices operating here in Maine.

    We know.

    We’re not “dumbed down” as someone called us.

    We want to try something new and different and force issues.

    Will it work? Most likely not!

    We’re not fools.

    So stop calling us names, and stop being so derogatory towards us.

    We are waiting to see what will happen.

    Will the justices (fake ones) address our issues?

    Maybe or maybe not.

    Be supportive, will you?

    All for now.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • The door was opened, Lise. Don’t pay any attention to people who try to degrade your hard work and research. You can tell just how much someone knows by their comments. I wish they would spend as much time learning/researching as they do complaining. It does take longer trying to accomplish something when others can only find fault. They compound their own problem by being a problem! We are all working to achieve the same result…and we had the opportunity to try what no one else has done. Nothing lost! And much revealed through their briefs.

      • contrary to your assumption that there was “Nothing lost!”, there was a great deal lost as a result of Lise and her team failing to take the time and effort required to write a proper legal “brief” for the state supreme court’s consideration … if Lise and her team had taken all the time they were given to provide pertinent facts, evidence, law and procedure about their constitutional claims and backed up by Lise’s research, the court would have had no option but to accept the “brief” into the record and for proper consideration… but that is not what they chose to do … Lise and her team chose to submit a very brief “brief” which lacked most legally supportive elements and then they wonder why it was ignored … How do you expect these ego-maniacal “judges” to give your research any credibility if you don’t provide them with the facts, evidence, law and procedure to support your legal claims?

  5. Hi!

    Read and study my book called “Where Did The Original Constitutional State Go? by Lise Dupont where I disclose the above-mentioned information and more.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  6. Hi!

    Some of us KNOW. Some of us KNOW about the corporate, administrative state.

    I am shouting from the rooftops:

    Some of us KNOW.

    I KNOW; I KNOW; I KNOW.

    I am NOT dumbed down as I was called recently.

    The attorney general operates from the “Department” of the attorney general (see Title 5, MRS, Section 191) as mentioned in LePage’s brief as well as the attorney general’s.

    Is this a “fourth” (4th) department in this codified, statutory and fraudulent state (State of Maine)?

    Yes, it is.

    In the statutory constitution it continues to say 3 “distinct” departments – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial (Article 3, Section 1).

    So what is this “fourth” (4th) department anyways?

    Is this lawful?

    Of course not!

    By the way, the whole codified, statutory constitution of the State of Maine is fraud and treason against the people.

    Again:

    I KNOW; I KNOW; I KNOW.

    It’s the corporate, administrative state.

    I KNOW; I KNOW; I KNOW.

    We, the people, will NEVER get anywhere as long as there is “in fighting” with each other.

    And guess what?

    State officials love it when the people are “fighting” with each other, name calling and so forth.

    It keeps us divided.

    Suggestion: Respect each other.

    If someone doesn’t like what one person or group does, then just be respectful and watch what happens and learn from it.

    Some people don’t know how to show respect to people.

    All for now.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  7. Hi!

    This same person who called me a “dumbed down” person recently and used a derogatory term such as “these people” that included me also told me last spring by email that he was “shutting down everything” meaning shutting down his email account (s) but this was an “outright” lie.

    I later learned from someone that this same person thought I was getting “too close” to the remonstrance people. No definition was provided as to what “too close” actually meant.

    There is always someone who is kind-hearted who will tell me the truth of the matter. He probably NEVER thought that I would learn the truth regarding his lie.

    I did.

    What is it to him who I am “too close” to?

    It is none of his business.

    Isn’t this childish?

    It is actually crazy and foolhardy. What a revelation about him, isn’t it?

    What business is it of his who I am “close” to?

    It is none of his business. I can hang around with whomever I choose without his permission.

    Who does he think he is anyways?

    Calling me a “dumbed down” person and referring to “these people” in a derogatory tone which includes me reveals who he is and his thought process.

    He resorts to name calling and labeling people, and I don’t appreciate it.
    Additionally, he resorts to finding fault rather than asking questions about what “these people” are attempting to do.

    He may learn something if he asked questions instead.

    What evidence does he have that I am a “dumbed down” person?

    In reality, what is a “dumbed down” person? How does one determine that?

    Rod Class was not successful using the “corporate” name in his case and more. Examine his filings on the court docket sheet that were DENIED. Plenty were DENIED. It is quite revealing to say the least.

    “These people” are using a new and different approach, and let’s see what happens.

    Stop judging us, will you?

    Why not support us instead? Is that too difficult for you to do given your judgmental personality?

    Are you the ONLY person who claims to know everything?

    We have nothing to lose by filing in two briefs in the “administrative” supreme judicial court regarding Governor LePage’s question of law under Article 6, Section 3.

    There is a possibility that we may gain something even if it is a “slight” possibility.

    All for now.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  8. Hi!

    I listened to Rod Class’ latest show regarding his case in the City of Washington and the International tribunal that has an interest in his case.

    Very informative!

    I believe that Rod Class “survived” because as he stated in his latest show “I did not back down, and I had my say” in the courtroom.

    This is VERBAL, folks.

    If you examine the docket sheet, plenty of his paperwork was DENIED.

    Without the verbalization from Rod in the courtroom, he may have gone “down the road” for years.

    This guy has “guts” and knew his stuff, and that is how he survived I believe.

    Good for him! God love him!

    Additionally, Rod is trying something “new and different.”

    Great!

    Now, back to the guy that called me a “dumbed down” person recently and referred to me as one of “these people” in a derogatory tone.

    For your information, I have known this guy for years and years. I recently had two (2) phone conversations with him regarding his recent hospital stay as well as his rehab stay.

    What did I hear in those phone conversations for the most part?

    Mostly negativity regarding staff. I also heard that “another” landlord was going to evict him.

    What does this say about him?

    Does he have anything to say about others that is positive?

    Is this an “ingrained” pattern about him?

    I called to “support” him in his dilemma but now I wished I had never called.

    Here is what I believe his negative traits are and there could be much more:

    1. egocentric
    2. cynicism
    3. pessimism
    4. aggressive
    5. arrogant
    6. big-headed
    7. nasty
    8. belligerent
    9. domineering
    10. intolerant
    11. mean-spirited
    12. etc.

    Rod Class just revealed that he is involved with an International tribunal that is interested in his case.

    He is trying something “new and different.”

    Well. what about us who filed in two (2) briefs regarding Governor LePage’s question of law?

    Isn’t that something “new and different?”

    Of course, it is.

    Do we want to establish ourselves as “corporate” entities and most likely not be recognized?

    Absolutely not!

    Do you think we are fools and that we are crazy?

    Yes, we know about the “fake” and fraudulent State of Maine (codified) and just about everything else.

    Yes, we know.

    Just read my book called “Where Did The Original Constitutional State of Maine Go?” by Lise Dupont.

    It reveals a great deal.

    By the way, I also “heard” from someone that this “same person” who recently called me a “dumbed down” person and more that my book did not offer a solution.

    A solution?

    Is he crazy?

    Is he stupid?

    Does he think I am stupid enough to speak about “solutions” and then likely get charged with “practicing law without a license?”

    Once again, is he crazy and stupid?

    I most certainly am not.

    I was NOT going to take the risk.

    Another put down from him?

    He KNEW all along that I would NOT provide solutions. I would ONLY educate those who wanted to be educated.

    Furthermore, the problem(s) must be identified BEFORE coming up with solutions.

    Far too many people want to “jump into” solutions without understanding what the problem(s) is.

    So, is this “same” person supporting and encouraging us regarding our briefs?

    Instead, he calls us “dumbed down” and refers to us as “these people” in a derogatory tone.

    Has he “knocked down” Rod Class for trying something “new and different?”

    Not that I know of.

    Why not?

    Why “knock” us down?

    Do you suppose his “negative traits” has surfaced once again?

    I kept hearing (by emails and phone calls) over an over again from this “same guy,” who recently “knocked” me down, about Rod Class’ notion about placing everything with “black ink on white paper” into the court.

    But if you read Rod Class’ docket sheet, see how many of his “black ink on white paper” were DENIED.

    I believe by knowing this “same” guy for years and years that he once again “exposed” his true self.

    Does he think that he is the ONLY guy that knows anything?

    I remember years ago when I first discovered the “commission” regarding the judges, and explained it to him.

    I had to go around “Robin Hood’s barnyard” over and over again because he simply could NOT comprehend what the commission was, the function of a commission and the significance of it was.

    Is he stupid?

    Due to my college education, I was WELL AWARE that some people are more auditory learners and some people are more visual learners so what did I do in this situation?

    I USED BOTH by speaking with him on the phone and sending emails explaining this.

    I spent far too much time with him trying to get him to comprehend this “simple” concept.

    Finally, after months and months and months of explaining, he finally got it.

    Hooray!

    By the way, I have shared other discoveries with him but had to explain what it actually meant.

    I no longer do that with him but I have discovered plenty more, and I share it with others instead such as this blog, emails, phone calls, etc.

    So, why not support us, the four people, that you recently called “dumbed down” and “these people” in a derogatory tone since we are attempting something “new and different?”

    Can you do that or is your negative pattern of behaving and thinking getting into your way?

    Do you even want to support us at all no matter what we do or don’t do?

    We are, indeed, doing something “new and different.”

    Will we succeed?

    Who knows?

    Just like Rod Class, will he be successful in his endeavors with the International tribunal?

    Who knows?

    At least he is attempting something “new and different.”

    Good for him, and God love him.

    All for now.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • Rod Class enjoys the successes of his legal efforts because he gives the law the respect it deserves, acknowledges that judges, justices and magistrates have the legal power (whether Rod likes it or not) and he files properly supported and expressly created legal documents into the court docket without fear of judges’ reprisals … you cannot expect to create any legal victories if you’re too afraid to walk into the courtroom to acquire those victories …

    • Lise, since you know there is no such license as a “license to practice law”, why do you not want to challenge that deprivation of our rights in court by challenging the actions they perceive as criminal?? if you know the law says you are correct, why not challenge the illegality of their “law license” by providing them with the FACTS, EVIDENCE, LAW and PROCEDURE to prove your point? I know they will be coming after me soon for that reason and I am well-prepared to face-off with them in their “courts of law” … and i will win using their own words against them just like i got my 7 criminal charges dismissed using their own statutory laws… but i would not win anything if I talk a good talk at home but never walk my walk in the courtroom … how could i expect to win any case if i never put my research to use where it matters? how can you??

      • Gina, I found this; “I respectfully request the indulgence of this court as I am not schooled in law. This is provided by the precedent set by Haines vs. Kerner at 404 U.S. 519.”

  9. The last thing I want is to be is an “I told you so” and without the long winded diatribe by “Lise” I would leave this whole thing alone, I never called her anything so I can’t believe she is in reference to me, but what I said would happen with the “BRIEF” did happen, if any of you think that makes me feel better your wrong, and it saddens me because its more proof we are going to gain no ground towards our “FREEDOM” until we start building gallows.

    • There is nothing lost with trying something new. At least there are people willing to try! The brief that was filed explained how the Governor could regain his powers/authority. What harm in allowing one to speak at oral argument? The denial further proves the brief is on target. They don’t want this revealed.

      • I never said there was anything wrong with what you did, you can waste your time how ever you wish, and what you explained seems to have fallen on deaf ears, I hate to bring this up again but LePage
        is not a Governor he is the CEO (chief executive officer) of the foreign corporation “STATE OF MAINE”, we, like all other STATES have had no government since 1933, getting the truth out is what is most important, I agree with you your brief was/is right on target further proving your waste of time, the truth has not been allowed in the BAR courts for ever, if they allowed you in there orating the truth the court system would melt like the WICKED WHITCH doused with water, or a Were Wolfe in the light of day.
        The truth is as foreign in BAR courts as the BAR CARD HOLDERS are foreign to a free country, these things cannot co-exists.

  10. The “brief” written by Lise et al (which i’ve read several times) would have had a stronger impact if she had actually written a true legal brief well-supported by facts, evidence, law and procedure.

    Lise’s alleged “brief” was nothing more than a small collection of constitutional anecdotes with no substantial factual support, but yet Lise wonders why her “brief” was ignored (or trashed) by the “judges”?

    Lise and her team were well-informed of their legal responsibilities in creating the “brief”, and they had plenty of time to create a proper brief but they intentionally decided not to use all the time they had citing potential bad weather as their excuse.

    They essentially wasted 48 hours and chose to submit an inferior document into a state supreme court case and then Lise asks to participate in oral arguments when she gave the judges no legal reason to allow it.

    There is no place for unsupported excuses in law.

    There are RULES and PROCEDURES for a reason, regardless if you are employing maritime law, constitutional law or statutory law. Laws are laws, procedures are procedures, rules are rules … if anyone wants to be properly heard in a legal forum, you must make sure your paperwork contains all the required legal elements showing your FACTS, EVIDENCE, LAW and PROCEDURE.

    If you don’t show the judges the FACTS, EVIDENCE, LAW and PROCEDURE, how do you expect them to rule in your favor on your information (which you never provided) ??

    • Gina, first of all this is not a “case.” It was turned into a “case” by the supreme court. The court’s order stated the word “brief”, but the appellate rules didn’t need to be followed, per the court, due to the nature of this “case.”

      You don’t know the reason for “accepting” the court’s invitation to comment to the court because you haven’t followed the calls, etc, The brief stated the problem exactly, supported with their own documents.

      Not being a party to the “case”, it was expected that others would not be able to participate in oral argument. However, the steps taken have further proven the point about this unconstitutional state/courts.

      Not one minute was wasted with the very short notice given to the public…and yes, the weather was a problem, not an excuse.

      The facts, evidence, and law were provided in the “brief”, but the “procedures” in this case didn’t apply. You have to understand what kind of “case” this is.

      If you’re a part of the group, why are you bashing them?

      • Gina, I can understand your way of thinking because you worked for attorneys for years..(that’s what you told me)….and this is the way it’s done, etc. Well, people are onto “their ways”. .

      • i beg to differ to a significant degree … i was expressly invited to assist your group with writing the “brief” because of my 25 years’ legal experience but you chose to ignore my suggestions and instead wasted the final 48 hours to do a proper legal document… the document you submitted as a “final” “brief” was in fact the draft document which was first sent to me for editing … Lise repeatedly said she was concerned about it “getting kicked out” … i even had to specifically ask her to stop emitting negative energy around the creation and submission of this document… and then, when I told her i needed more information to support her claims, all of a sudden I was kicked aside (along with other people) and expressly excluded from participating in the private phone calls and any further amendments to the “brief” …

        if your group is seeking the community’s support to bring awareness to these unconstitutional and illegal political activities, why do you prevent others from participating in your projects and then explicitly ignore the suggestions they offer you?

  11. Rick, we already know what you stated…don’t waste your time telling us what we already know. “Most important is getting the truth out? That’s what was done….I don’t see many people doing the same! There are deaf ears on this side of the fence too!

    • I don’t know any “RICK” if your in reference to me, and you got very little truth out if any, you filed a brief that went no where.

      • Sorry, it was meant to be “Rich”….You know this was in reply to you….picky, picky!

  12. for anyone reading these comments who do not know me, I have worked as a (rebellious) legal secretary for 25 years for private attorneys, government attorneys, as well as directly for the court system … i do not in any way approve of or condone their actions and have used what they taught me to expose their corruption and conspiracy to violate The People’s rights under the color of “law” … i have always confronted my “lawyer employers” for their lack of ethics and morality which is a primary reason i no longer work for them … but i do appreciate everything they taught me because I am now well on my way to securing personal (and community) legal victories in their “courts of law” by using their own rules against them… i have just begun to challenge them on their own playground and will continue to challenge them with every new piece of legal information and experience I acquire …

  13. just for the record, i believe the court’s expectation that non-BAR members of the public could submit proper legal briefs on less than 2 weeks’ notice was an absurd and absolutely unreasonable expectation … the courts routinely grant, as a matter of law, no less than 14 days to file any type of brief or responsive pleading… for the Maine supreme court to expect the public to submit proper pleadings in less than 2 weeks was an abuse of their discretion if they truly wanted the public’s input… but i don’t believe they wanted the public’s input~ i believe they wanted to appear as though they wanted the public’s input, or they were blindly and unwillingly adhering to required rules of procedure for that type of legal issue.

    I highly doubt they are going to give any consideration to any of the public briefs in their decision… and i believe we will see this “case” appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States by either the Governor or the Attorney General because I do not see how the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has any true judicial authority to decide this issue (as Lise has proven in her book … )…

    I wish the public had been given the statutory time required to file a “brief” (as the court requested) because I would have been able to help the group put together a rock solid and unrebuttable document challenging the validity of the Governor’s questions with Lise’s research to prove our points …

    but that wasn’t the situation here … in short time we will see the true colors and agenda of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court “judges” …

  14. Hi!

    I knew in advance that we would most likely NOT be allowed to
    “argue” our briefs but the four of us decided to try something new and different.

    Article 6, Section 3 is ONLY advisory but the chief justice of the “administrative” supreme judicial court “converted” LePage’s question of law into an “adversarial” situation.

    She violated the constitution; she is a criminal.

    As a matter of fact, Article 6, Section 3 says NOTHING about the people so, therefore, we had NO right to file in briefs to start with.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  15. Hi!

    Furthermore, there is NO such thing as “Lise and her team.”

    I did NOT originate the idea to begin with. I went along with it because I had a “goal,” and it was accomplished.

    Additionally, some people in the media read our briefs and that is “good enough” for me and who knows who else read it as they were in the “public domain.”

    I knew all along that being allowed arguments regarding the briefs were futile but we decided to try it anyways. We had NO right whatsoever to make arguments at all and file briefs via Article 6, Section 3 of the constitution.

    We had nothing to lose and perhaps something to gain. And if there was nothing to gain, then so be it.

    Who cares?

    We wanted to try something new and different, and we did.

    Criminals do NOT want to deal with the “real” issues.

    The actual arguments by the attorneys on both sides argued stupid things. It was all about statutes and NOT constitutional issues.

    My goal was met so I’ll move on with my life.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • Who cares? I care because I was expressly invited (and very excited) to participate in this historical moment but I was intentionally excluded (along with others) because Lise (and her team) did not want to make the legal changes I suggested (or to consider suggestions from others).

      Lise claims to have “plenty of evidence” (in her book) but she never provided that “plenty of evidence” in the “brief” … (Did she expect the judges to read her book to acquire that evidence?)

      The “brief” was a basic collection of constitutional anecdotes only and the “final” draft was a poor excuse for a legal document.

      As soon as I saw Lise’s “final draft” (after it was filed with the court) I KNEW the judges would ignore it due to its many legal deficiencies.

      You think judges are criminals (and I may agree with you), but they are still “judges” and still in control of our courts and we still need to deal with them whether we like it or not.

      You also said, “some people in the media read our briefs and that is “good enough” for me and who knows who else read it as they were in the “public domain.””

      Don’t you think the “brief” would have made a much stronger public impact if it was loaded with the “evidence” you claim to have? How do you expect people of the “public” to know the truth if you don’t provide them with the evidence of the truth??

      Do you also require them to buy your book to receive that information?

    • Lise, well stated! The intended goal was achieved. The 1855 and 1975 exhibits were most important for people to see the unlawful transfer of powers. Most important is that the Governor/legislature understand this.

  16. Hi!

    The current supreme judicial court is nothing more than an “administrative” court, and you can call it whatever you like.

    Commercial perhaps?

    By the justices’ own admission in the Going case (June 2014), they admitted that judges are NOT commissioned officers. They used deception and lies in that case in order to fool the people but I was NOT fooled one bit. I later heard that some people could not figure this case out and especially by one person who claims to be so smart.

    I have plenty of evidence that judges are, indeed, commissioned officers, and I placed two (2) copies of judges’ commission as exhibits in my book called “Where Did The Original Constitutional State Go” by Lise Dupont.

    I knew when I agreed to participate in filing briefs into the LePage question of law situation who I was dealing with.

    Nothing but criminals.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  17. Dot: I guess your right again, I’m not reading anything, did you leave out a word? did you mean, I am not reading anything “important” just Lise’s and your posts.

    • Richard, if this isn’t important to you, why waste your time?

      • You shouldn’t sell yourself so short, your not a complete waste of time, and maybe some people paid a little more attention to this blog than they would have with no back and forth comments.
        YA THINK

  18. LePage IS NOT A GOVERNOR HE IS A CEO OF THE CORPORATION “STATE OF MAINE” nothing more!!
    if you people can’t learn, how are you going to teach?

  19. Hi!

    Some of us do, indeed, get it.

    This is ONLY the “administrative” state.

    That’s it.

    It is NOT the “original” State of Maine. It was “overthrown” in 1876.

    It is a “fake” state, and is it any wonder that we, the people, do NOT have our rights upheld any longer?

    I just read “up to” page 15 of the “fake” justices “question of law” regarding Governor LePage and the attorney general, and it is NOT surprising to read the “horse manure” in it.

    The whole thing makes me sick.

    On page 4 the “fake” justices “admit” that the Office of the Attorney General operates “outside” of the 3 departments (Article 3, Section 1).

    Do they think we are all dumbed-down out here?

    Apparently so.

    I will now read the rest of it. I did need a break from all the “horse manure.”

    We will be doing a show on this tomorrow evening at 9 pm.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  20. Hi!

    Just finished reading the remainder of the “fake” justices’ reply to the “question of law” by Governor LePage.

    It still made me sick.

    LePage has announced a “win.”

    Did he actually win?

    What did he win?

    Article 5, Section 1 (constitution) says he, the governor, shall be the “supreme executive power” of the state.

    If you are the “supreme” power of the state, then why in God’s name do you have to seek “permission” of anyone?

    In the fake justices’ reply brief the governor still has to seek permission of the attorney general to seek outside counsel.

    Really?

    Is this not contrary to the constitution?

    First of all, the governor’s questions of law were just plain dumb.

    Just plain dumb to start with.

    Additionally, the fake justices admit to recognizing the “independence” of the Office of the Attorney General (Title 5, Section 191).

    Really?

    This is ONLY a statutory office and NOT a constitutional office.

    Furthermore, the fake justices mentions different “case law” which is NOT law.

    They also address that the attorney general did NOT deny the governor outside counsel.

    Who cares?

    And lastly, they address the Executive department as the Executive branch.

    There is NO such thing.

    The ONLY branches are located in Article IV, the legislature – House and Senate.

    All for now.

    I may have more to say tomorrow or another day.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  21. Hi!

    Did the fake justices address what some of us placed (briefs) in front of them?

    Absolutely not!

    It was a “hot” potato, and I knew they wouldn’t right from the “get go.”

    The fraudulent 1855 amendment “removed” the attorney general from the Executive department and placed that office/officer in the legislative department.

    The attorney general was nominated and appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the council (see Article 5, Section 8 of the original Constitution of the State of Maine) which was unlawfully abolished in 1976.

    LePage would not have this problem if the attorney general stayed in the Executive department. This officer (AG) worked for governor and the council originally and answered to them.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  22. Lise: As you know this was all done so any questions on any issue would ultimately have to be brought before a foreign agent BAR CARD HOLDER, these traitors are ruining this country, even the so-called chief executive of the STATE has to get permission from one of these slim bags for what ever, and the rest of us slaves end up in the BAR CARD HOLDERS private courts begging to be left with the shirt on our backs.
    I would read the bullshit the fake justice wrote but I’m sick enough already, and I’m sure you know why the fake justice didn’t address your “BRIEF”, no truth (something real) can be allowed in these fake courts (all phony), except what they bleed from us on a daily basis.

  23. Mr. Kane,

    Since you are “sick enough already,” why not just stop reading
    altogether?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • I’m sick of the bullshit being put down black ink on white paper by the fake judges, I’ll read about anything I want, you put yourself out as some kind of expert on the court system and I have read a lot of your writings, whoopee, as an example of your short comings, you chose to address Richard Wayne: Kane as Mr. Kane, “Mr.” is a title given by the royals it falls between a commoner and Knight constituting a subject, I explained this in great detail to the last fake judge I confronted and have never accepted any titles, not from the fake judges and not from you.
      I listened to the talkshoe last night, one of you knowledgeable people said the fake court invited comment from the public, from what I read (without your permission) the court invited comment from persons or entities, that is not the public, and all that participated in the talkshoe including you kept referring to lepage as your Governor and his operating in the statutory, he is the CEO of the corporation “STATE OF MAINE” statutory, elected in as CEO by voters, they are statutory, there is no Governor, the voters are subjects of the statutory STATE.
      Think about how nice I am I haven’t suggested you stop writing.

  24. Hi!

    In the “opinion” dated March 10, 2015 of the “fake” justices regarding Governor LePage’s question of law it states in part on page 4:

    “In contrast, the office of the Attorney General is CREATED (emphasis is mine) in Article IX of the Maine constitution, which is captioned, “General Provisions.” See Me. Const. art. IX, Section 11.”

    Is this for real?

    Did this article and section as above-noted “really” create the “office” of the Attorney General?

    Really?

    Let’s see for ourselves.

    Here is what the article and section as above-mentioned actually says as it pertains to the “statutory” 2013 constitution:

    Article IX, Section 11 says (page 31):

    “Attorney General. The Attorney General shall be chosen biennially by joint ballot of the Senators and Representatives in convention. Vacancy in said office occurring when the Legislature is not in session, may be filled by appointment by the Governor, subject to confirmation as required by this Constitution for Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court.”

    Did this article and section actually “create” the “office” of the Attorney General?

    Absolutely not!

    It says NO such thing!

    All it speaks about is “how” the Attorney General shall be “chosen.”

    That’s all.

    That is all, folks.

    No “office” was created in this article and section.

    None at all.

    Have we been lied to by these “fake” justices?

    You bet!

    Are you “really” surprised?

    I am not because since these “fake” justices are NOT commissioned and do NOT operate from the “original” Supreme Judicial Court,” all they can do is continue to “commit” crimes by lying and manipulating to the general public, the people.

    These “fake” justices are nothing more than “administrators” enforcing the “will” of the state in their “state-wide” court system.

    Wake up, folks!

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  25. Hi!

    I have the booklet that spells out the “statutory” 2013 Constitution of the State of Maine (not Maine constitution).

    Now I shall do a “compare and contrast” as it relates to Article 3, Section 1 of the said constitution:

    Here is what it says (page 6) :

    “Section 1. Powers distributed. The powers of this government shall be divided into 3 distinct departments, the legislative, executive, and judicial.”

    There you have it.

    3 distinct (separation of powers doctrine) departments were created.

    What are these departments?

    Why they were “public offices” originally.

    Take notice of the “past” tense in the use of the word “were.”

    Do we have public offices today?

    No, not at all.

    We live in the “administrative” state, and the “original” constitutional State of Maine was “overthrown” in 1876.

    Read my book “Where Did The Original Constitutional State Go?” by Lise Dupont and see “how” this happened.

    And you wonder why your rights have been “thrown out the window?”

    Now, where is the so-called “office” of the Attorney General located?

    Remember there are ONLY 3 distinct departments.

    Only 3.

    So what department is the “office” of the Attorney General located?

    First of all, is there any such thing as a “constitutional” office of the Attorney General?

    Absolutely not!

    The Constitution of the State of Maine has NEVER created such an office.

    But what have the “fake” justices told us in their said opinion about this “office” of the Attorney General:

    On page 2 of the opinion it states in part: “The office of the Attorney General, an office created by the Maine constitution, ordinarily filled………..”

    On page 3 it states in part: “The Governor does NOT (emphasis is mine) appoint the Attorney General unless a [v]acancy in said office
    occur[s]……………..”

    Why do you suppose they are telling us this part?

    Is it to sort of “slap in the face” those of us 4 who filed a brief showing that “originally” it was the governor who nominated and appointed the Attorney General with the advice and consent of the council? See Article 5, Section 8 of the “original” Constitution of the State of Maine.

    The council was unlawfully abolished in 1976, one hundred (100) years AFTER the “original” State of Maine was overthrown.

    Is this an accident?

    President Franklin Roosevelt told us that NOTHING helps by accident.

    On page 3 of the said opinion it continues to state in part: “The Attorney General is the executive head of the Department of the Attorney General.”

    What did they say?

    Department of the Attorney General?

    Wow!

    What a revelation!

    Remember that according to the constitution, there are ONLY 3 distinct departments. See Article 3, Section 1.

    Where did this Department of the Attorney General come from?

    Why they tell us, of course.

    It is located in Title 5, Section 191(1) (2014).

    What is Title 5?

    It is “statutory” which is “inferior” to constitutional law.

    Got that?

    It is ONLY statutory and NOT constitutional as the “fake” justices have
    told us.

    They lied to us, folks!

    Title 5 is “ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES.”

    There is that word “administrative.”

    This office of the Attorney General is ONLY “administrative.”

    Wow!

    Again, what a revelation!

    Are you getting the picture by now, folks?

    More to come later.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  26. Hi!

    Mistake:

    Meant to say:

    President Franklin Roosevelt told us that NOTHING “happens” by accident.

    Not “helps” but “happens.”

    Oh well!

    Mistakes do happen after all.

    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: