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, 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

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


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 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  

Constables – Revised Statutes of Maine 1847

Courtesy of Lise from Maine

Click here.

Published in: on October 30, 2013 at 8:24 pm  Comments (1)  
%d bloggers like this: