LD237 An Act To Establish a State Bank Coming to a Vote in Maine Legislature – Rebuttal to Lloyd LaFountain

Mainers Please: contact your Rep or Senator and ask for a yes vote on LD237 and amendment.for a STATE OWNED BANK..

Rebuttal of MainePublicBanking.com to testimony of Lloyd P. LaFountain on LD237 Amended

8th Maine Legislature, First Regular Session
The Joint Standing Committee on Insurance and Financial Services
Testimony of Lloyd P. LaFountain Ill,
Superintendent, Bureau of Financial Institutions

Senator Whittemore, Representative Lawrence, and members of the Committee:

My name is Lloyd LaFountain and I am the Superintendent of the Maine Bureau of Financial Institutions. On behalf of the Bureau and the Administration, I am here to testify in opposition to LD237, An Act to Establish A State Bank, as amended. The proposed amendment would establish a state-owned bank to be named the Maine Green Bank.

LD237 is the latest iteration of a public state bank bill that has been before the Legislature at least four times in recent history. Similar bills have come up numerous times in other states around the country. To my knowledge all other states have declined to endorse the concept and there are no modern examples of success for a state owned bank. The lack of modern examples that would provide models for Maine to follow is an indicator of the risk, scope and cost of such an undertaking.

>> Bank of North Dakota, which is still operating profitably, provides a model public bank in the United States. Multiple other public bank models exist around the world, including public banks in Switzerland, Germany, Japan, China, India, and Brazil. Growth rates in these public banks economies has been higher than in areas without public banks and their economies were not as severely impacted by the global 2008 crash..

At past hearings on this type of legislation, the State Treasurer, the Finance Authority of Maine (FAME), the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), among others, expressed concerns about whether a state-run bank would help the State and its citizens. These organizations already have infrastructures, programs and missions similar to the Green Bank proposal. We heard that if a problem is identified, it may well be solved within these organizations and at less expense.

>> The Finance Authority of Maine (FAME) and the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development were unable to stop the economic Tsunami which followed the 2008 financial collapse, but North Dakota kept growing throughout the crisis. In recent years the Finance Authority of Maine (FAME) and Department of Economic and Community Development were unable to prevent decimation of Maine’s manufacturing, and paper industry. Economist James Breece, Ph. D., concluded in his overview of Maine’s economy: Maine’s “Economic output ranks 46th in the country and output per worker ranks 48th (out of 50 states); Per Capita Personal Income grew 3% in 2014 and ranks 33d in the nation; and Maine has experienced a LOST DECADE in terms of employment.” FAME is not a bank and does not provide working capital loans for farmers. North Dakota has a Financial Authority similar to FAME, a housing authority similar to MaineHousing and Bank of North Dakota. Bank of North Dakota is a bank. These organizations have not succeeded in rescuing Maine’s economy. Because they are not banks they are unable to provide the liquidity needed to extract Maine from its liquidity trap, identified by Lord J M Keynes. No organizations have resources equal to the proposed Green Bank. The State of Maine has one-fourth the public financing per capita of the State of North Dakota, which has about half of Maine’s population.

Proponents of the prior bills often cited that a key reason for a public state bank is to expand access to credit. I would note that Maine state-chartered financial institutions fared well during the last recession. They maintained adequate capital and remained keenly interested in lending to credit worthy borrowers. In addition, the Bureau’s survey of foreclosure activity by Maine state-chartered financial institutions revealed that they avoided making predatory loans that led to disruption in the real estate market.

>>Maine has a much higher foreclosure rate and loan delinquency rate than North Dakota, which has the only state-owned bank, because the 2008 recession was not even felt in North Dakota. Maine’s employment level has not yet returned to its 2007 level, one decade after the beginning of the financial collapse. North Dakota has lower foreclosure rates, smaller bankruptcy rates, lesser past due loan rates, lower unemployment rates, smaller tax burden, lower negative equity, higher educational spending growth per capita, better credit ratings, and more stable property values.

The Committee should also be aware of the risks associated with forming a state-owned bank.

>>The risks in not forming a state-owned bank are to wallow in the economic stagnation experienced during the lost decade or loss of state funds in one of the many worldwide private institutions Maine invests in. The state money invested in global financial institutions is now at higher risk, while a local public bank would provide a safe fiduciary as well as strengthening the local economy.

The Committee has heard, or will hear, about the Bank of North Dakota model and that bank’s positive contribution to the state’s general fund. Whether a state~owned bank established in Maine’s economic and banking environment would enjoy the same success as the Bank of North Dakota is uncertain.

>>Everything in the future is uncertain. It is uncertain whether we will have another financial collapse like 2008, but it is more likely that a Bank of North Dakota model would improve Maine’s economy than continuing on the path that has clearly proven that it is not working.

Undertaking the creation of a state-owned bank involves risk with no guarantee of similar performance.

>>Maine’s current financial risks are far higher than the risk of creating a state-owned bank. The Treasurers Cash Pool invested on Wall Street could disappear with another meltdown. Cash would be safer in our own bank. Nothing is guaranteed, but with a qualified team, and management there is a high probability that the state-owned bank will be successful and help raise living standards of the people of Maine.

A new institution could not be expected to contribute to the state’s general fund for many years after initial capitalization.

>> Who knows? If the Green Bank invested in renewable energy and other growing sectors it could be successful soon with a qualified team and good management.

It is likely the bank would have to retain earnings for several years in order to ensure solvency and create a cushion against operational and loan losses.

>> This statement is pure speculation. The Treasurer’s Cash Pool now contains substantial funds, obtaining under 1%, almost no yield, invested in uninsured securities, some foreign, that could capitalize a state-owned bank, instead. Maine Green Bank could underwrite 50 to 80% of participation loans by existing state or local origination and risk assessment partners following the BND model. It would share risk with partners, strengthening all parties. If deposited in a State-owned bank, Maine Treasurer’s Cash Pool would stimulate Maine economic activity, instead of France, England, Canada, Japan, Netherlands, and Minnesota, as it is now doing.

Which brings me to the issue of capital. Start-up capital is essential to a banking organization. Capital is the foundation for bank operations. It is the money put at risk by investors or the organizers of mutual banks and credit unions and serves as a cushion against losses. When a bank functions well, it can add to capital. Capital is depleted during times of economic stress and unexpected losses from bad loans, cybercrime, data breaches, or poor management.

If capital is significantly eroded, then the organization becomes insolvent. An insolvent bank no longer has the ability to meet its obligations. Under the amended proposal, if the Maine Green Bank became insolvent it would be unable to pay obligations to Maine citizens and to Maine government instrumentalities. This is because the proposal requires deposits into the Maine Green Bank from the Treasurer and all instrumentalities of the State amounting to 30% of their cash, which may be withdrawn by those organizations at any time (by loan).

>> We envision that the Treasurer and instrumentalities would keep a minimum balance of 30% of their cash in checking accounts in the Maine Green Bank, as banks do. This could be negotiated between the Green Bank and instrumentalities; if the fraction is too high, perhaps accommodation could be reached. We envision that Green Bank would provide checking accounts and depositors would write checks on those accounts to pay their debts. We do not envision that the minimum balance of deposits may be withdrawn by organizations at any time whether by loan or in any other way. We don’t see how capital could be significantly eroded. Many of the loans will be with blue chip organizations. They will be fine. If loans go bad for the Green Bank then they would also go bad for its partners who have much more experience operating in Maine.

Unmet obligations would include the cash deposits of Maine consumers, the Treasurer, and government instrumentalities, such as the University of Maine, FAME, Maine Maritime, Maine Municipal Bond Bank, and Maine Housing to name a few.

>> Maine consumers won’t be depositing funds in the Green Bank. The Green Bank will be only for institutions. This is the Conceptual Design Phase. There will not be this often-repeated “insolvency” with its “unmet obligations.” The biggest crisis that retail banks now face is the chance of a run on the bank. Runs can’t happen on the Green Bank because minimum deposits are required by law. The second biggest crisis that retail banks face is a 2008-like derivatives crash. This can’t happen either because the Green Bank cannot trade in derivatives. Thus chances of the Green Bank failing are almost nil. Careful and thoughtful design of Green Bank’s systems and competent management will prevent problems..

Loss of operating cash for these organizations could create financial crises across state government.

>> The chance of the bank failing are almost nil. Any Maine agency that lost cash could create a crisis. A few years ago in the Maine Turnpike Authority a case happened with lost funds. If Minnesota-based U S Bank, without Maine branches, that issued Treasurer’s checks some time ago lost operating cash, could it not also create financial crises across state government? Was Minnesota-based U S Bank examined by the Maine Bureau of Financial Institutions? I don’t think so. Since Maine Green Bank would be within Maine Bureau of Financial Institutions jurisdiction, hopefully, Maine Bureau of Financial Institutions could spot the problem before it became big enough to cause a crisis. Of course careful, mindful, thoughtful design of the Green bank’s systems and competent management would be essential for success. I think that the people of Maine are as smart as the people of North Dakota. If North Dakota can operate a public bank for 98 years without financial crises across state government, so can Maine.

The forced deposits could also restrict activities of government instrumentalities if their operating cash gets tied up in long term development loans.

>> “Forced deposits” mischaracterizes the 30% minimum balance requirement. When 30% of cash for daily operations is deposited in an account in the Green Bank, it shouldn’t restrict activities of government instrumentalities. The Green Bank won’t be lending its deposits. No banks do. It will be creating new money when it lends it, as other banks do. Page 7 of “Modern Money Mechanics” Federal Bank of Chicago says “Of course, they (banks) do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts”. This is also in my book.

Further, funds deposited in the Maine Green Bank would not be insured by a federal agency such as the FDIC or NCUA.

>> FDIC or NCUA can only insure up to $250,000 of the deposits. Treasurer Cash Pool funds are much more than $250,000 , they are measured in millions, and none of Maine’s cash is completely insured now. But, being in a Maine fiduciary institution, instead of in various unsecured worldwide entities will make Maine’s cash safer.

Without such insurance, the only safety net for depositors is the full faith and credit of the State of Maine and, ultimately, the tax payer.

>> FDIC or NCUA agencies can only insure up to $250,000. Because Treasurer Cash Pool funds are much more than $250,000 they aren’t insured now. Today, if FAME funding is increased, taxpayers pay for it. Green Bank won’t require more taxes, when it lends, because it can create money when it lends it. It has to keep a required reserve of usually at least 10 percent that cannot be loaned. We propose keeping 30% in reserve for a safety cushion.

I would note also that, even if the bank were solvent, some of these organizations maintain investment portfolios with returns that may well exceed deposit returns offered by a Maine Green Bank.

>> Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what returns these organizations make elsewhere. But I strongly doubt these organizations will obtain a higher return than Maine Green Bank. Bank of North Dakota has been earning record returns over 15% returns for 13 years.

Given these concerns, creation of a state bank carries risk and it is inadvisable to create a Maine Green Bank without a significant cash injection in order to absorb losses through bad times and bad decisions.

>> These concerns are invalid. We need the active participation of community leaders who are mindful and investigative and help set up organizations and systems to insure that Iceland-type looting doesn’t happen. Maine Green Bank will not carry additional risk if it is properly designed and staffed by competent management, and will substantially reduce the risk of loss of existing investments. The only chance of increased risk would be if it were very poorly designed, or very poorly managed. Very few public banks have failed, except in Iceland after they were privatized, when they were looted by their management, which is shown at the beginning of the full length movie, Inside Job. Funds available in agencies’ cash are far more than minimum needed to create a public bank. Iceland’s stable economy before bank privatization was due to its 3 public banks. The $1B in the Treasurers Cash Pool should be enough to create a stare-owned bank. It can issue bonds if it needs more capital.

Prior bills have indicated $20 million dollars was required at start-up to fund a loan and investment program. Even that amount may not be sufficient for its purposes.

>> There is over $1B in the Treasurers cash pool. That is more than enough to start a public bank. Plus there is cash in instrumentalities accounts and the right to issue bonds..

I would note that industry averages for capital are around 10% of assets. Thus, a $1 billion bank would require $100 million in capital. A bank would have little impact on the Maine economy without high capital contributions. By way of example, Maine’s largest state-chartered banks range from $1 billion to $3.5 billion in assets.

>> State-owned banks are entirely different from private banks. The $1 B in the Treasurers cash pool is enough to start a public bank. The capital requirement mentioned sounds like the Reserve Requirement set by the Federal Reserve. Our simulation assumed that 30% of funds would be reserved for this and other purposes.

The bill, as amended could also impact the stability of Maine’s community banks. If every state instrumentality must deposit funds into the Maine Green Bank, and if the Maine Green Bank also attracts individual customer deposits in competition with the private sector, there may be significant deposit outflows from Maine financial institutions, compromising their ability to do business, make loans, and contribute to economic growth.

>> Maine consumers will not be depositing funds in the Green Bank. The Green Bank will be for state institutions only. The Green Bank’s impact on stability of Maine’s community banks would be to strengthen them and make them more profitable. North Dakota Banks are 3 times more profitable than Maine Banks. North Dakota has a lower loan delinquency rate and lower foreclosure rate than Maine, because it has a state-owned bank and Maine doesn’t. Yet. MAINE GREEN BANK WILL NOT COMPETE WITH PRIVATE BANKS.

Also, in past hearings on this type of legislation, opponents indicated there may be constitutional prohibitions on pledging the full faith and credit of the State-—a question that would ultimately have to be resolved by the Legislature or Judiciary.

>> The Constitutionality of the Bank of North Dakota was challenged and upheld by the U S Supreme Court. Over the years other state banks have also been upheld by various courts. This data is available on line using a key word search. Ellen Brown writes: “ In Green vs. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233 (1920), the U S Supreme Court upheld the bank’s constitutionality against a Fourteenth Amendment challenge and deferred to the state court on the state constitutional issues, which had been decided in the state’s favor.” The Bank of North Dakota is Constitutional so the Maine Green Bank will be Constitutional.

The bill as amended creates additional examination concerns. It allows the Maine Green Bank’s board of directors to establish the rules under which it would be examined.

>> Either this is false, I misread the amendment, or it was was changed since I last saw it. The Green Bank’s board of directors will follow the law, whatever it is. They will establish rules for the bank, but the rules for how the bank will be examined will be set by the examiners.

Chartered financial institutions have independent federal and state regulators that examine the institutions based on what the law says, not what the institutions’ board deems important. Here, the language of LD237 as amended would provide Maine Green Bank’s board and advisory committee ultimate authority to choose which safety and soundness principles by which it should be measured.

>> The legislature has the power by law to rescind any rules adopted by the Bank’s Board of Directors. Since “Safety and soundness” is not mentioned in the amendment, it appears that this charge is false. The Maine Green Bank’s Board of Directors will follow the law, whatever it says.

Lacking federal guaranty of deposits, state agencies would have sole responsibility to examine and audit the organization to ensure safety and soundness. These oversight responsibilities would require additional personnel costs for the Bureau.

>> We are now in the Conceptual Design phase. If any additional personnel costs arise, once Maine Green Bank is established, either it, or the Legislature, will find an equitable way to compensate the Bureau. This is a Logical or Functional Design phase issue. It is premature to talk about this now. Since this is not a roadblock, it should just be noted.

These costs would be in addition to the establishment of a physical location for the bank, and the executive and administrative salaries of the Maine Green Bank. Salaries that would have to be high enough to attract talent with experience running a bank.

>> We are now in the Conceptual Design phase. The Maine Green Bank would find a way to pay salaries that are enough to attract experienced talent. This is the work of management. It is premature to talk about this now. This is a Logical or Functional Design issue.

The Bureau is also concerned about what it must examine the proposed bank for.

>> It should be examined like any other bank is examined, including safety and soundness.

In Bureau examinations of state-chartered financial institutions, staff examines for safety and soundness of banking operations, lending policies, board procedures, compliance with anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act statutes, capital adequacy, cybersecurity, and other important matters. In contrast, the examination of the Maine Green Bank would take on additional objectives For example, along with the rules created by the board; the Bureau would also have to assess whether the Maine Green Bank is operating in accordance with its stated “purposes” laid out in Section 1252. Some of these purposes include:

Increasing the per capita income of residents and families in the State;
Financing medical and dental health enterprises, facilities, equipment, laboratories, training, and all-inclusive elderly-care financing;
Lowering inequality in the concentration of wealth; and
Lowering loan delinquency rates by increasing family income, among others.
Additionally, the Bureau would have to evaluate whether the Maine Green Bank avoided certain prohibited activities. These prohibited activities include:
Investing in large real estate sprawl development projects which would eliminate
farmland or forest habitats;

>> The vision for the Maine Green Bank is that the Bureau of Financial Institutions would NOT have to assess whether the Maine Green Bank is operating in accordance with its stated “purposes” such as “Lowering inequality in the concentration of wealth.”

Investing in projects where borrowers have histories of human rights abuses;
Funding projects that damage the environment, increase greenhouse gas, acidity, or
temperature of the oceans, seas, lakes and rivers; and Underwriting stores with parking lots not designed for pedestrians, to name a few. These examples are not provided to discredit the goals of the Maine Green Bank. However, there is no method for the Bureau to determine if the stated purposes of the Maine Green Bank are being met, or whether it is engaging in a prohibited activity. The Bureau questions whether there exists cost-effective and feasible ways to examine for these unique factors at all.

>> The vision for the Maine Green Bank is that the Bureau of Financial Institutions would NOT have to assess whether the Maine Green Bank is operating in accordance with its stated “purposes” such as “Lowering inequality in the concentration of wealth.” These are the goals of the Bank and the reasons why the Bank would be created. The Bureau of Financial Institutions should evaluate safety and soundness of the bank. But if the Bureau did assess how the Bank is meeting its purposes, there is substantial data that could be researched to evaluate that. Perhaps the Bureau of Financial Institutions could hire economists, social workers, and environmentalists, or it could contract the work out to other state agencies, or private firms, or other entities.

With Best Regards,

Randall Parr

LD 237 – An Act To Establish a State Bank

Summary of LD 237

Advertisements
Published in: on March 7, 2017 at 2:54 pm  Comments (9)  

Do Maine Legislators Understand The Constitution?

Courtesy of Lise from Maine – Researcher and Author of “Where Did The Original Constitutional State Go?”

Lise DuPont is a former licensed clinician. She graduated from high school from Our Lady of the Mountains Academy in New Hampshire. She has a Bachelor’s Degree from the University of Maine, a Master’s degree from the University of New England, and completed two years of Post-Graduate training at the Center for the Awareness of Patterns.

“There has been a media frenzy regarding whether the legislature adjourned or not on June 30, 2015.

The legislative Joint Order states “On motion by Senator Mason of Androscoggin, following Joint Order: S.P. 556 – Ordered, the House concurring, that when the House and Senate adjourn they do so until the call of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, respectively, when there is a need to conduct business, or consider possible objections of the Governor.”

This order clearly shows that the legislature could meet again in the future to discuss issues of that session which would be a continuation of the issues. “Sine die” is not mentioned in the order, and this is a very significant piece to comprehend.

1843 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary:

NO word “adjourn” appears in the said dictionary.

Adjournment:

“Adjournment, is the dismissal by some court, legislative assembly (emphasis is mine), or properly authorized officer, of the business before them, either finally, which is called an adjournment sine die, without day; or, to meet again at another time which is appointed and ascertained, which is called a temporary adjournment.”

This definition shows that there are two ways to adjourn, and they are “opposite” of each other. The first definition is a finality (sine die), and the second definition leaves the “door” open to meet again, if need be.

Attorney General Janet Mills responded to an inquiry from Senators Hill and Saviello on July 10, 2015 regarding the “status of bills” presented to the Governor which he has neither signed nor vetoed. In the first paragraph she states “The Legislature has not adjourned sine die, and more than ten days have elapsed since certain bills were presented to the Governor.”

Why is she arguing something that is NOT in the Joint Order? Doesn’t she know that there are two (2) ways to adjourn or was that NOT taught in law
school?

Is she being clever and manipulative or is she ignorant?

Nowhere in the Joint Order does it say “sine die” which means “finality” meaning that the legislature will not be meeting again regarding those laws discussed and passed. In other words, “sine die” means that the session is over.

The Constitution of the State of Maine (statutory one of 2013) clearly spells it out regarding adjournment and more which is located in Article IV, Part Third, Section 2.

Since the legislature has been “adjourned” (the second definition in the 1843 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) since June 30, 2015, then how can the Governor present these bills to the legislature since “no one is home” so to speak in the legislative chambers? In actuality, the Governor is being prevented from doing so, and his hands are “tied” at this time. He is waiting for them to return in session so he waits to do something with those bills.

This is NOT about liking or disliking Governor LePage, this is about the “rule of law.”

Thank you!

Constitution of Maine (1820)

SP 556 – Bill Text, click here.

Governor Paul LePage legal memo, click here.

A.G. Janet Mills’ Opinion, click here.

Legislative Council’s letter to Cynthia Montgomery, LePage’s Chief Legal Counsel, click here.

Related: As The Fur Flies At The State Capital…Maine Governor Paul LePage And Legislators Clash Over Fate Of Bills Still On Governor’s Desk, click here.

Public Notice To Maine Governor Paul LePage

“Last evening, Wednesday January 8, 2014, the local news channels addressed the tension between Governor LePage and Attorney General Janet Mills as it relates to the medicaid report, and he said that she could sue him for not releasing the report.

He is a republican, and she is a democrat.

Here is what Governor LePage does not know about.

What happened as a result of the 1855 resolve?

In order to understand what the fraudulent 1855 resolve accomplished, you must understand what the original constitution says and means.

First of all, in the original Constitution of the State of Maine (1820) it states in part in Article V, Part First, Executive Power, Section 8: “He [Governor] shall nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Council, appoint all judicial officers, the Attorney General (emphasis is mine), the Sheriffs, Coroners, Registers of Probate and Notaries Public……….”

This is an Executive Department function ONLY. All of this belongs in this department.

Here is what the 1855 resolve states in part: (View 1855 Resolve, click here.)

“SECT. 10. The land agent and attorney general (emphasis is mine) shall be chosen annually by joint ballot of the senators and representatives in convention.

Vacancies in said offices occurring when the legislature is not in session, may be filled by appointment by the governor, with the advice and consent of the council.”

What is the problem with this resolve?

First of all, the legislative department has NO delegation of authority to “interfere” with another department.

The function of the Attorney General is to “execute” the laws of the state, and that is an Executive department function ONLY.

The legislative department ONLY makes the laws.

“Separation of Powers” is a common law principle among many principles.

What the Legislature accomplished by this fraudulent resolve is to “steal” from the Executive department the ability to “elect” the Attorney General and have the Attorney General under its thumb so to speak to execute the laws of the state rather than the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council, to select their own Attorney General of their own “choosing.”

Remember that the Attorney General had to attend ALL court sessions of the “circuitry court” known as the Supreme Judicial Court (this court was eliminated in 1929 unlawfully) that travelled to each county to hear causes. He was there to make sure that all laws were faithfully executed lawfully according to the original constitution.

The Attorney General also gave instructions to the “local” county attorney, who had a “double role.” He acted for the state AND the county. The county attorney office has been eliminated in 1973 and replaced by the district attorney office who has ONLY one role; he acts FOR THE STATE ONLY and enforces the “will” of the state.

Keep in mind that the Attorney General is a “field person” who goes out into the various counties (the terrain) and executes the laws of the state as well as the Sheriffs and their deputy Sheriffs. He is under the thumb of the Governor and the Council (Council was eliminated in 1976) to execute the laws.

The Attorney General does NOT belong in the Legislative department since the said department cannot lawfully instruct the Attorney General to execute the laws as this is an extreme “conflict of interest.” It is an interference into another department as it relates to the execution of laws. What this 1855 fraudulent law does is to eliminate the “separation of powers.”

The Legislative department ONLY makes the laws and ANOTHER department executes them. This is the “separation of powers” under the common law, and they don’t mix like oil and water.

Additionally, the Legislature has NO delegation of authority to expand its powers by having the Attorney General under its thumb, and also has NO delegation of authority to “fool” the people (electors) to vote on a fraudulent proposed amendment to begin with.

Furthermore, did Governor Anson P. Morrill ask a “question of law” to the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court (see Article VI, Section 3) regarding this proposed amendment (1855 resolve)?

The Founding Fathers provided a remedy to the public officers in the event that they were uncertain as to the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a proposed law.

Here is what Article VI, Section 3 states regarding the Judicial department: ” They [judicial officers] shall be obliged to give their opinion upon important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions, when required by the Governor, Council, Senate or House of Representatives.”

It was the Governor’s role as well as the Council’s role to behave in an “adversarial” role as it relates to the Legislature attempting to “steal” their authorities pertaining in this situation in the selection of the Attorney General.

Did they?

I don’t believe so since this fraudulent, pretend law passed.

Keep in mind that a “supposed” law is not law, and it is null and void on its face.

Can the Governor execute a fraudulent law? No, he cannot.

It is fraud and treason.

If Governor Lepage understood this, he could challenge this fraudulent 1855 resolve and take it to court (we don’t have any courts but he could try it anyways). He could make this concept public in his radio addresses and whatever he chooses to write about. He could go to the media and explain to them what this fraudulent 1855 resolve accomplished unlawfully. He could “shout from the rooftops” explaining this fraud and “demand” that these offices be returned to the Executive department.

Exposure is the name of the game.

Overall, what the 1855 resolve accomplished was to “weaken” the Executive department, and in 1976 it was further weaken it with the elimination of the Executive Council.

This 1855 resolve also removed the ability of the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council, to nominate and appoint their own Sheriffs who are also “field persons” who go out into
the “terrain” called counties and execute the laws of the state. This repugnant 1855 resolve allowed the Sheriffs to be elected by the people (electors).

All fraud and treason.

How can the electors know who are the best persons to do the job of a Sheriff? They don’t. That is the job of the Governor and the Council to select the best qualified persons in order to execute the laws of the state.

In essence, this 1855 resolve “did a number” on the Executive department by removing the ability of the said department to choose their own Attorney General and their own Sheriffs who are the “field persons” to do the best job possible in order to execute the laws.

Thank you!”

Lise from Maine

Related:

A.G. Janet Mills says the LePage administration is violating state law and threatens court action, click here.

LePage fends off accusation of ‘cronyism’ in hiring controversial welfare consultant, click here.

Notice and Demand to A.G. Janet Mills, click here.

Who is violating the law?

Public Acts of the State of Maine (1832 to 1839)

Courtesy of Lise from Maine

Click here.

Published in: on November 4, 2013 at 4:32 pm  Comments (9)  

Constitution and Revised Statutes of the State of New Hampshire (1842)

Courtesy of Lise from Maine

“The purpose of showing a part of the Judicial department of the NH constitution is that it shows and supports my investigation and research that “all” judges must be commissioned.

The commission is a document that is under seal of the state and has 4 components (see Article IX,Sec. 3 of the Constitution of the State of Maine) and it vests the office, a public office to the person so named in his commission.

With a commission the judge has acquired a public office, judicial powers, and immunity.

Without it he is an impostor.”

Click here.

Published in: on November 4, 2013 at 3:53 pm  Comments (1)  

Act regarding the prompt administration of Justice by establishing a Superior Court in the county of Aroostook (1889)

Courtesy of Lise from Maine

Sixty-Fourth Legislature of the State of Maine, click here

Published in: on November 4, 2013 at 3:11 pm  Comments (4)  

Question Submitted To The Supreme Judicial Court By The Governor (1889)

Courtesy of Lise from Maine

Sixty-Fourth Legislature of the State of Maine, click here.

Published in: on November 4, 2013 at 2:47 pm  Comments (1)  

Power Of Justices And Service Of Jurors – 1821

Courtesy of Lise from Maine.

Laws of the State of Maine

An Act describing the power of Justices of the Peace in Civil and Criminal Cases.

An Act regulating the Selecting, Empannelling and Service of Jurors.

Click here.

Published in: on November 4, 2013 at 2:21 pm  Comments (6)  

Act Relating To Sheriffs’ And Coroners’ Bonds, Duties And Powers 1820-21

Courtesy of Lise from Maine.

Laws of the State of Maine, click here.

Of Coroner’s Inquest, click here.

Published in: on October 31, 2013 at 3:00 pm  Comments (1)  

Is The 1893 Act In Relation To Suits At Law And In Equity Lawful?

Regarding Maine State Bar Association – 100 Years of Law & Justice (1891-1991), click here.

“On page 9 of the said booklet it states in part: “The first annual meeting of the Bar Association was held in the afternoon at the Senate Chambers in Augusta, February 17, 1892, at 7:00 p.m. A dinner meeting was held at the Hotel North, Augusta’s principal hotel, before the Augusta House. In the afternoon, Charles F. Libby gave his President’s address entitled “Legal Reforms (emphasis is mine).”The principal thrust of his speech was to advocate the merger of law and equity (emphasis is mine) along the lines of the English Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1873, a forerunner of our modern Rules of Court (emphasis is mine). A list of the reforms proposed by the Bar Association during the first 25 years of its existence is distressingly familiar and tends to show the public resistance (emphasis is mine) to reforms proposed by the legal profession. There is a huge predisposition to leave the law alone. Libby’s proposed reform of merging law and equity did not become wholly effective until 1959, some 70 years later (emphasis is mine), although the Legislature did pass the Law and Equity Act permitting a case to be transferred from the docket of one to the other without dismissal. (P.L. 1893, ch.2l7).

On pages 9 and 10 of the said booklet it states in part: “Among the reforms discussed and supported by the Bar Association during the Progressive Era (emphasis is mine) were bills to reform the court system by separating (emphasis is mine) the trial court function from the Supreme Judicial Court and providing for a nisi prius court. This issue was brought up repeatedly (emphasis is mine) until finally in 1930 the Superior Court was created (emphasis is mine) and became operative.”

Strangely enough, why was the first annual meeting held in the “Senate Chambers” in 1892 almost a year after the law of 1891 relating to the establishment of the Maine State Bar Association?” This seems odd, doesn’t it? Was this about “influence” as it relates to legal reforms and the legislature? Appears that way, doesn’t it? What does “influence” actually mean? In dictionary.com it states in part the definition of influence: “the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others.”

By the extraordinary turn of events over time, what law was Mr. Libby’s presidential address about “legal reforms” referring to? As noted above, Mr. Libby advocated the merger of “the law” and equity law in his address. Is it the common law? The courts at that time were operating under the common law jurisdiction. So how can the common law and equity become merged lawfully? Aren’t they different jurisdictions and different laws? Of course, they are! The common law is not under the control of the legislatures but equity laws are so how can they be merged lawfully? They cannot. Mr. Libby, shame on you for attempting to pull this stunt.

What were the reasons for such a merger? Who would benefit? Was it the people as a whole? I think not. Who would be enriched by this merger? But curiously enough, Mr. Libby’s merger proposal according to the said booklet did not take place until 70 years later in 1959. So what happened in 1959? Peculiarly, this proposed merger of “the law” and equity were a forerunner of the modern rules of court as stated above. What is this all about? These measures, for the most part, were part of much larger picture of what was to emerge from this in later years, and this is to underscore the dangers flowing from this merger.

In the 1893 law regarding equity and law it states in part in Chapter 217: “An act in relation to suits at law and in equity in the Supreme Judicial Court and Superior Courts. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives, in legislature assembled, as follows: SECT. 1. When, in an action at law in the supreme judicial court, it appears that the rights of the parties can be better determined and enforced by a judgment and decree in equity, the court may (emphasis is mine), upon reasonable terms, strike out (emphasis is mine) the pleading at law, and require (emphasis is mine) the parties to plead in equity (emphasis is mine) in the same cause and may hear and determine the cause in equity.

SECT. 2. When in any equity proceeding in the supreme judicial court, it appears that the remedy at law is plain, adequate and complete and that the rights of the parties can be fully determined and enforced by a judgment and execution at law, the court (emphasis is mine) upon reasonable terms strike out the pleadings in equity, and require (emphasis is mine) the parties to plead at law in the same cause and may hear and determine the cause at law.

SECT, 8, In all proceeding,; in the supreme judicial court, under the preceding sections, where there appears to be any conflict or variance between the principles of law and those of equity, as to the same subject matter, the rule and principle of equity shall prevail (emphasis is mine). At the hearing of all equity causes, oral testimony shall be received as in trials at common law (emphasis is mine).”

As a reminder, this 1893 law came about only two years after the Maine State Bar Association was passed in 1891. Nevertheless, it doesn’t take long for a law to pass to suit the needs of the legal profession and overlook the rights of the parties involved. In no small way this law sheds light on what principles will dominate and provides the judge an expansion of power to make decisions regarding the cases that he hears. In all actuality, however, this is another expansion of power regarding the state via the judge. Not only that, the judge is the trier of facts, and there is no trial by jury in a court of equity also known as a court of chancery. In particular, the judge can issue an order, decree, or judgment to compel a person to do something or to stop doing something. What is this about? It provides a great deal of power to the judge, and of course, he determines what is fair and just but may not, in fact, be fair to a party involved in a case. If a person does not follow his orders, decrees, or judgment, then that person can be held in contempt and be compelled to jail. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff arrives to an equity court with the idea to invoke the powers of the said court and compel a specific action. It should come as no surprise that equitable relief is at the discretion of the judge, and of course, in a constitutional court using the common law jurisdiction no judge has discretion in any case when a right has been proven, and it is the jury who decides the case and not him. It is unfathomable that a judge would have such extraordinary powers, and it is very important to understand what is at stake here.

In the original Constitution of the State of Maine it specifically states that all criminal and all civil proceedings shall be by a trial by jury (see Declaration of Rights). It proves in a striking manner that power is being taken from the people slowly but surely and on to the state via the judge. When a judge has the power to decide cases and compel someone to follow his orders, then this becomes a dangerous situation for the defendants and the people as a whole. Shockingly enough, it shows an increasingly contemptuous disregard to the said constitution.

Viewing the subject matter in light of the said constitution, I am brought to the conclusion that this 1893 law is extremely repugnant to the constitution, and there is no doubt about it. As a result of this law, and the truth of the matter is that this is absolutely obstruction of justice to say the least as it is seizing power away from the people whereby no jurors are allowed in a court of equity as all proceedings, civil or criminal, must be decided by a trial by jury. This, in essence, is the people’s power. In summary, my belief system is such that Mr. Libby’s presidential address given in 1892 in the Senate Chambers is a criminal network, racketeering network and lobbying network of lawyers in order to benefit them through legal reforms and using the legislature to meet its ends. Above all else, this is fraud, and the legislature has participated in this fraud, and they have come to be known as bandits over time.”

Lise from Maine

 

Published in: on October 30, 2013 at 10:24 pm  Leave a Comment  
%d bloggers like this: