Talkshoe Radio – Maine Supreme Court Oral Arguments Over Disputed Governor Paul LePage Vetoes

Continued discussion on the adjournment fiasco between Governor Paul LePage and the Legislature and the Maine Supreme Court’s Oral Arguments heard on Friday, July 31, 2015.

Hear audio from Friday’s hearing. Click here.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015
9:00 PM EDT

Call in Number: (724) 444-7444
Call ID: 27398#

Click here to join in online.





Talkshoe Radio – Maine Exposed: Adjournment Fiasco Between Maine Governor Paul LePage and The Legislature, click here.

Talkshoe Radio – Was Maine Governor Paul LePage Set Up? Click here.

Published in: on August 3, 2015 at 10:25 am  Comments (12)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

12 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hi!

    My prediction:

    The “fake” supreme court will “bypass” Article IV, Part
    Third, Section 1 and Title 3, Section 2 (Constitution of the State of Maine- 2013).


    Because it will implicate the criminal behavior of the legislators
    meeting and voting on June 18th of which they lawfully adjourned
    on the third Wednesday of June (June 17th) because they did NOT
    request an extension of time (5 legislative days) based on an emergency on June 17th (See Title 3, Section 2).

    This is a “hot potato,” and they won’t go there. The general public for the most part will not grasp this.

    Instead they will focus on Article IV, Part Third, Section 2 and speak about the triggering of the 3 days. This is “how” they will weasel out of this dilemma.

    LePage will win and be happy and not really understand what happened, and the general public will remain ignorant as usual.

    Wait and see.

    Those of us who research, read and study will understand this.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  2. A sad STATE we are in (Pun intended), I would bet your right! but then you will be regarded as wrong after all you have no black robe (gowned clown attire) we know they have been anointed from on high, and titled called “HONORABLE” so they couldn’t be the lying conniving rats I think they are, or could they??

  3. Hi!

    I may be regarded as wrong by some people who fail to fully understand the issues – the uninformed ones or the ignorant ones.

    Some others will “get it.”

    And yes, I don’t have a “title” as justice, judge or “Honorable,” and I don’t wear the lovely “black dress” so one could say that I don’t have the credibility to have a say in this but they would be wrong to say the least.

    I have researched, read and studied this issue regarding LePage’s question of law. I know what I am talking about in this situation.

    I research, read and study plenty of issues, and I prove what I say with evidence.

    Some people make “empty” statements of which they don’t provide any evidence to back up what they say, for example, Tipping-Spitz in his book.

    If I suspect something, then I “outright” say that I don’t have the evidence of such but do suspect something instead. It is ONLY a suspicion at this point. That is an honest way of speaking about an issue (s) and will continue to research to find the evidence.

    Any thoughts?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  4. Hi!

    Keep in mind that the “fake” judicial department is required to go to the legislature for “money” (fake money, of course) to keep their fraudulent operation going – state-wide courts with administrators presiding in them in order to “enrich” the “fake” state.

    So do you think they will implicate the criminal behavior of the legislators when they met unlawfully and voted on June 18th?

    Absolutely not!

    Any “thinking” person can figure this out. They will not “bite” the hands that feed them.

    Any thoughts?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  5. they implicate the legislature,they implicate themselves .their all lawyers for the most part.honor amongst thiefs.

  6. Hi!

    NOT all members of the legislature are lawyers.

    The main issue is that the “fake” justices (only administrative) will NEVER address a “hot issue” such as Article IV, Part Third, Section 1 (2013 statutory constitution) and Title 3, Section 2 in this situation as it would implicate those members of the legislature that met and voted on June 18th which is fraud and treason.

    It will show that they are criminals since they had NO delegation of authority to proceed beyond June 17th, the third Wednesday of June, and didn’t request and voted for an extension of 5 legislative days (see Title 3, Section 2).

    Won’t go there.

    This is SO simple to understand unless someone has a brain malfunctioning.

    They will NOT “bite” the hands that feeds their unlawful criminal enterprise called the state-wide court system (Maine) as they “need” (not want) money from the legislature in order to fund their criminal enterprise.

    The courts here in Maine are “administrative” ONLY.

    I highly suspect that they will address Article IV, Part Third, Section 2 regarding the triggering of the 3 days as LePage has raised in his question of law.

    I am eager to read and study their “opinion” because that is all it is, an opinion.

    They EVEN admit that their ruling is “advisory” ONLY.

    An “opinion” has NO force and effect of law and neither does “advise.”

    Any thoughts?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  7. The statement was “they are all lawyers for the most part”, not they are all lawyers.
    If one claims to be learned in law, the reply should be, none of them are Lawyers, they are all Attorneys, or they are all Attorneys for the most part.

    As there is no law only, STATUTES, color of law.

  8. Hi!

    What happened to the profession of Counsellors-at-Law here in Maine?

    Why aren’t there any Counsellors-at-Law operating here in Maine?

    Are attorneys and Counsellors the same?

    What does the Constitution (original and the 2013) say or does not say about either one in Article 1?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  9. The phony court did away with then by requiring BAR CARDS.

    Because the phony court system won’t/can’t allow them, you might go I and tell the truth (BAR CARD HOLDERS DON”T) and that is not allowed.

    Yes they are today, but they are not supposed to be in a real court.

    What the const.says or doesn’t say does not matter in the phony courts, the const. is not allowed, only as window dressing.

    Check out Private Attorneys General, They might make a difference some day , one can only hope.

    Let us all remember that people writing something down on paper years ago saying they and their posterity can tax you and your posterity for eternity, is something akin to what comes out of a bulls backside when his tail is lofted.

    It you swear an oath to the constitutions, they apply and you should stand by that oath, nobody seems to today, if you don’t swear an oath it does not apply.

    How does the govt. claim dominion over everyone and everything?
    Could it be the constitutions?

  10. Hi!

    It is the Maine State Bar Association created in 1891 (the second one) that actually did away with the Counsellors-at-Law profession
    “indirectly” by requiring “attorneys” a certain educational level and then it got worst from there.

    This association eventually destroyed the constitutional, county courts, within and for the counties (local control), and also eventually destroyed the use of the common law procedures. Nowadays, the “fake” supreme judicial court created the “rules” of court.

    I share this and more in my book.

    Read my book called “Where Did The Original Constitutional State Go?” by Lise Dupont.

    Available in all bookstores and online bookstores.

    This book will NEVER be on bookshelves since there is “too much” truth revealed in it.

    It must be ordered instead.

    Oh well!

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  11. Hi1

    The Maine State Bar Association could NOT require Counsellors-at-Law
    to have a certain “kind” of education, for example, college education.

    It was originally the Supreme Judicial Court (the original one) that was given the power to “examine” those who wanted to argue causes in courts. In 1820, the Maine State Bar Association did NOT exist.

    Also, keep in mind, that attorneys cannot deal in criminal causes; ONLY Counsellors-at-Law can do that. Counsellors can “advise” a client or just take over the cause.

    Attorneys take over the causes.

    What does the Constitution of the State of Maine (original and the 2013)
    say in Article 1, Sections 6 and 20?

    It says “counsel” and NOT attorney.

    Why is that?

    First of all, the Founding Fathers were well aware of the difference of attorneys and Counsellors, and they were also well aware that it is the client who would pay the consequences (jail time? loss of property? paying of fines? etc?) if the Counsellor/attorney is incompetent.

    So what is the answer to this dilemma?

    Argue the cause yourself IF and IF you understand the laws/issue(s) at hand (requires reading and studying) OR hire a Counsellor (none exist today) and have him or her “advise” you but keep control of the cause.

    Better yet: Stay out of these “fake, administrative” courts altogether as you will be walking into the “Lion’s Den” and the “administrator” (not a judge) will have you for “lunch.”

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  12. How many people do you know that willingly volunteer to go into these phony courts? of course if you walk in on your own without being dragged, they consider that volunteering.

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: