Talkshoe Radio – Was Maine Governor Paul LePage Set Up?

Discussion on the adjournment fiasco between Governor Paul LePage and the Legislature with Constitutional Researcher Phil Merletti.

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

Please join in. Your questions or comments are welcome.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015
9:00 PM EDT

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

Click here to join in online.

EPISODE 66, LISTEN HERE.

Related:

Maine Governor Paul LePage Requests Opinion of Maine Supreme Court Over Veto Dispute and the Legislature’s Adjournment, click here.

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

Published in: on July 27, 2015 at 2:15 pm  Comments (7)  

Maine Governor Paul LePage Requests Opinion of Maine Supreme Court Over Veto Dispute and the Legislature’s Adjournment

BDN reports “Gov. Paul LePage’s contention that the Legislature is adjourned and that he has the right to hold 70 enacted bills until lawmakers reconvene was rebuffed on two fronts late Friday afternoon, including  an opinion from Democratic Attorney General Janet Mills.

The opinion, which was requested by Sens. Dawn Hill, D-Cape Neddick, and Tom Saviello, R-Wilton, has been circulated to a range of lawmakers and the governor’s office. It is unlikely to sway LePage, who has said he will ask the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to rule on the matter if it is not otherwise resolved.  Read more HERE.

The Maine Wire reports “A Breakdown of the Veto Dispute.” Read more HERE.

7-24-15 – PPH article “Groups weigh in with state’s high court on LePage’s veto dispute with Legislature”, read here, and updated to this article, read here.

BDN reports “Gov. Paul LePage, legislative leaders, the attorney general and several advocacy groups made their cases to the state’s highest court Friday, submitting detailed legal briefs in a dispute over whether 65 bills are in law or vetoed.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court will consider the written briefs ahead of oral arguments scheduled for next week.” Read more HERE.

GOVERNOR’S REQUEST FOR OPINION OF THE JUSTICES

On Friday, July 17, 2015, at 12:40 p.m., the Governor of the State of Maine, Paul R. LePage, submitted the following questions to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Maine Constitution:

  1. What form of adjournment prevents the return of a bill to the Legislature as contemplated by the use of the word, adjournment, in Art. IV, pt. 3, §2 of the Maine Constitution?
  2. Did any of the action or inaction by the Legislature trigger the constitutional three-day procedure for the exercise of the Governor’s veto?
  3. Are the 65 bills I returned to the Legislature on July 16 properly before that body for reconsideration?

Documents:

The court has set a deadline of noon Wednesday for response briefs, and will hear oral arguments from the governor and the Legislature Friday, July 31.

This is an interesting article by the PPH “Denied public funds, Maine Republican House leader, Kenneth Fredette, to tap private funding for lawyer in veto case.” Read more HERE.

Related:

State of Maine Legislature Glossary of Terms: ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE – Adjournment Without Day. This is the final adjournment of the session when all business has been completed.

ORDERS ADJOURN WITHOUT DAY, Thursday, July 16, 2015 – S.O. 24 and S.O. 25, click here.

To note* – The Legislature had no authority to re-convene after June 17th based on Title 3, sec. 2 which states they must adjourn on the 3rd Wednesday of June, unless they extend the days. They didn’t extend the days on June 17th.

Courtesy of Lise from Maine…
“In Article IV, Part Third, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Maine it says that the Legislature must establish a law citing “limitations” regarding time frames of the first and 2nd legislative sessions.

That law is Title 3, MRS, Section 2 where it states that the first legislative session will end on the third Wednesday of June unless there is an emergency and they can extend it for 5 days excluding Sundays, and if there is “another” emergency, then they can extend it for another 5 days and must extend an extra day for the Governor to bring forth his objections, if any. This is a total of 11 days only and no more.

They ONLY get 11 days total as they can’t go on forever. There must be an ending according to law and there is.

The 3rd Wednesday in June of this year is June 17th. The legislature did NOT extend any days on June 17th which means that they were adjourned (finished) according to Title 3, MRS, Section 2. The law says what it says and means what it means. No getting around it.

On June 18th the legislature met again unlawfully and extended their session for 5 days by those present and voting.They were NOT allowed to do this as it violates Title 3, MRS, Section 2which is a constitutional mandate. They had NO delegation of authority to proceed to meet on June 18th, and this constitutes criminal activity by all those voting on that day and subject to impeachment.

Anything they did AFTER June 17th is fraud and treason. They either had the authority or they didn’t. In this situation, they did NOT have any authority to proceed beyond June 17th. Plain and simple it was over on June 17th.

This is very simple to follow, and it is short and sweet and to the point.

Talkshoe Radio – Adjournment Fiasco Between Maine Governor Paul LePage and The Legislature, listen HERE.

Do Maine Legislators Understand The Constitution? Read more HERE.

Talkshoe Radio – Maine Exposed: Adjournment Fiasco Between Maine Governor Paul LePage and The Legislature

Discussion on the dispute of “adjournment” with Phil Merletti and Lise DuPont, Researcher and Author of “Where Did The Original Constitutional State Go?”

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

Wednesday, July 22, 2015
9:00 PM EDT

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

Click here to join in online.

EPISODE 65, LISTEN 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.

Letter from the Maine Office of the Revisor’s of Statutes, click here.

SP 556 “ADJOURN UNTIL THE CALL OF THE SPKR AND PRES”, click here.

SP 556 – Bill Text, click here.

Published in: on July 15, 2015 at 4:05 pm  Leave a Comment  

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

PPH reports “In the latest twist of a historically bizarre legislative session, the LePage administration insisted Wednesday that lawmakers’ use of the word “adjourn” last week rather than “recess” gave the governor additional time to hold the 19 bills. Yet the nonpartisan state office responsible for publishing Maine statutes began writing the 19 bills into law on Wednesday despite the governor’s claims.

LePage’s maneuver, which is further fraying already tattered relations with some legislative leaders, appears to hinge on the question of whether the Legislature “adjourned” last week or “recessed.”

Under Maine’s Constitution, the governor has 10 days – excluding Sundays – to either sign or veto a bill passed by the Legislature. If he fails to act by the end of that 10-day period, the bill becomes law without the governor’s signature.

And here’s where the issue gets tricky.

The Constitution states that if the Legislature adjourns and then reconvenes, the governor has three days to send down a veto after lawmakers reconvene. Legislative leaders insist that they did not adjourn on June 30 but “recessed” until July 16 in order to take up a slew of vetoes expected to come from the governor.

But LePage’s office is pointing to an order passed by the Legislature on June 30 that states the Legislature will “Adjourn until the call of the Speaker and President.”

“As allowed by the Maine Constitution, the Governor will submit the vetoes when the Legislature meets again for three days,” LePage spokeswoman Adrienne Bennett said in an email to reporters.

In other words, LePage could wait until the Legislature has met for three days – officially, at least – before he sends the vetoed bills to the House and Senate chambers for reconsideration.

Paul Mills, a Maine political historian and the brother of Democratic Attorney General Janet Mills, told The Associated Press that he wouldn’t be surprised if the Maine Supreme Court is asked to weigh in on the issue, as it has in the past on similar procedural debates in the Legislature.

One opinion of the justices in 1981 may play into LePage’s favor. In that opinion, the justices argued that the Constitution requires that “the same Legislature must continuously be in session for three days before the period in which the governor may act on the pending bill expires.”

“It’s really kind of unexplainable,” said Lance Dutson, a longtime Republican strategist consultant who has been a vocal critics of LePage’s actions lately. “I can’t imagine that this is anything but a major screw up on the part of the administration. And their explanation today is absurd.”

Read more HERE.

BDN reports “LePage ups stakes in legal fight over adjournment. The next time the Legislature is in session for three days, he’ll deliver the bills he wants to veto,” LePage Communications Director Peter Steele said. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mark Eves, a Democrat from North Berwick, as well as Republican and Democratic senators, have asked Attorney General Janet Mills to weigh in on the issue. Read more HERE.

BDN Editorial – “Maine could end up in court to cover for LePage’s incompetence.

At this moment, LePage and his staff could choose to act with integrity. They could admit they erred and concede that the Constitution — as it has been applied throughout the state’s history — and rule of law do, in fact, apply.

Instead, they have raised an artificial legal question concerning what it means for the Legislature to adjourn — arguing for a definition no one with deep knowledge of Maine government (who isn’t working for LePage) accepts.” Read more HERE.

BDN reports “Attorney general rejects LePage’s argument for holding bills. Gov. Paul LePage’s contention that the Legislature is adjourned and that he has the right to hold 70 enacted bills until lawmakers reconvene was rebuffed on two fronts late Friday afternoon, including an opinion from Democratic Attorney General Janet Mills.

LePage argues that the Legislature adjourned on June 30, meaning that he does not have to submit bills for lawmakers’ consideration until three days after they have returned. Legislative leaders say they did not adjourn, they are in recess — meaning LePage missed the 10-day window to act on bills, which now would become law without his signature.

LePage also was rebuffed Friday afternoon by Grant Pennoyer, executive director of the Legislative Council, which oversees a range of legislative functions, including the Revisor of Statutes.

LePage, through his chief legal counsel, Cynthia Montgomery, asked Pennoyer on Friday that the revisor’s office stop chaptering 19 bills he is holding into law. The revisor’s office started moving the bills into law this week after LePage’s 10-day window to sign, veto or let bills go into law without his signature elapsed.

“The governor’s opponents wish to rush through the procedural hurdles associated with implementation of the laws and declare them valid,” wrote Montgomery. “Having the revisor’s office completely ignore the governor’s position is not only overtly partisan conduct on the part of the revisor’s office, it is also unnecessary as the governor intends to seek a legal solution to this matter.

The issue is whether the Legislature adjourned for the session on June 30. LePage argues that it did, despite the Legislature’s vote to adjourn “until the call of the chairs.” If the Legislature is technically adjourned, LePage has until three days after legislators reconvene to issue vetoes on some or all of the 70 bills that remain on his desk.

With Mills’ opinion buttressing legislative Democrats’ stance, LePage’s only remaining recourse seems to be the Law Court.” Read more HERE.

Rep. Fredette Urges Revisor’s Office To Stop Until Constitutional Issue Is Resolved By Law Court, click here.
Rep. Ken Fredette letter, 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.

Letter from the Maine Office of the Revisor’s of Statutes, click here.

SP 556 “ADJOURN UNTIL THE CALL OF THE SPKR AND PRES”, click here.

To note: When you click “Bill Text” this comes up:
Cannot find requested paper, no information available at this time for Session 127, paper SP0556, LD 0. Also, there is NO Roll Call.

SP 556 – Bill Text, click here.

Related:  Do Maine Legislators Understand The Constitution? Click here.

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.

A Maine State Senator, David Dutremble, Reports On The Judiciary Committee What The Public Has Witnessed For Years!

BDN reports “Public Lockout: From Deliberations by the Judiciary Committee of the Maine Legislature.

All legislative committees are mandated by Maine law to conduct hearings, deliberations, and work sessions in public.

But in a May 19 speech on the Senate floor, state Sen. David Dutremble (D-Biddeford) reported that the Judiciary Committee conducted such business in private over the weekend that started May 8. Its deliberations concerned the reappointment of controversial Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz – the judge who issued an illegal gag order in January – and whose reappointment was opposed by many members of the public.

Maine citizens deserve to know what transpired that weekend with their Judiciary Committee. Did the members, in fact, meet behind closed doors and/or have private conversations in violation of state mandates? A legislative inquiry into the actions of the committee is warranted to protect the interests of the public.

Here’s what is clear: Without a single comment or question, the Judiciary Committee on May 12 unanimously recommended that Moskowitz be reappointed. One by one, each committee member simply voted yes. Those of us who witnessed this were dumbfounded. It left us with the uncomfortable feeling that something was amiss. How was their unified position reached outside of public view?

This spring was the first time in 20 years that judicial reappointments were challenged. And many citizens vehemently and passionately expressed their opposition to Judge Moskowitz, as well as to Judge Patricia Worth before him. In both cases, the Judiciary Committee nevertheless unanimously recommended approval. And at least in the case of Moskowitz, committee members allegedly deliberated outside of the public’s view and earshot.

This is extremely concerning. State mandates requiring the utmost transparency are meant to protect us all.

Input from those who are consumers of the court system – not just lawyers who earn their livings in front of judges – must be heard. People also deserve to know that the systems set up to protect them are working as they’re supposed to. When systems become about protecting themselves instead of the citizens they were designed to protect, the delicate fabric and balance of our constitutional rights is put in jeopardy. Legislative maneuvers that eliminate transparency and thereby remove public oversight are the antithesis of a democratic society.

We urge the Maine Legislature to take action and give the public answers. When asked to explain how his committee could unanimously approve a judge with no public discussion whatsoever, the chair of Judiciary Committee, Sen. David Burns (R-Washington), responded that, “it is unfortunate that some individuals and legislators have tried to impugn the integrity of the committee members.”

Those who may dismiss this call for investigation, attributing it to “sour grapes” or “angry litigants,” demonstrate a lack of respect for the most essential principles that define our nation.

To date, the president of the Maine Senate, Michael Thibodeau, has failed to respond to requests for a public inquiry about the actions of the Judiciary Committee.

This raises additional concerns. Without a legislative inquiry and report, Maine citizens will be left to wonder if their legislative and judiciary truly are the separate branches of government that are fundamental to freedom and liberty. We need to know what our legislators are doing – and why they’re doing it.

If you agree with me on this, We urge readers to contact their legislator and request an investigation. Let’s just find out what happened.”

Read more HERE.

**********

While it took decades for a state representative to listen, then experience for himself, the egregious misconduct by member of the Judiciary Committee, the proof is in the pudding.

In rebuttal to the BDN’s report “This spring was the first time in 20 years that judicial re-appointments were challenged” is not correct. Several people testified before the committee in opposition to York County Superior Court Judge Arthur Brennan’s reappointment, less than 20 years ago.

“When asked to explain how his committee could unanimously approve a judge with no public discussion whatsoever, the chair of Judiciary Committee, Sen. David Burns (R-Washington), responded that, “it is unfortunate that some individuals and legislators have tried to impugn the integrity of the committee members.”

Senator David Burns was a member of the Judiciary Committee when former A.G. William Schneider was appointed to judgeship by Governor Paul LePage. Review “A System In Crisis” and you can come to your own conclusions as to the “criteria” used for confirmation of judges.
View HERE.  (Opposition to nomination begins at 46:14)

Phil Merletti Commentary on “A System In Crisis” – Judicial Confirmation Hearing of William J. Schneider, click here.

Related:

BDN reports “Maine Judiciary Committee Delays Reappointment Of Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz.”

“Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz was appointed to the District Court bench in January 2008 by Gov. John Baldacci after work as a prosecutor with the York County district attorney’s office. Gov. Paul LePage renominated Moskowitz to the bench last month along with eight of his colleagues.”

BDN reports ” A vote by the Judiciary Committee on the reappointment of the Maine judge was delayed Thursday until next week. Sen. David Burns, R-Whiting, chairman of the committee, said the delay would give District Court Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz and committee members an opportunity to read written testimony submitted before the hearing.

Burns said the committee would vote on Moskowitz’s renomination about 5 p.m. Tuesday.

More than half a dozen members of the legal community in Cumberland and York counties, including two district attorneys and a retired judge, spoke in favor of Moskowitz’s reappointment.

Moskowitz told the committee he wanted to keep his job.

“Like all people, I make mistakes,” he said. “You are all aware of my error issuing a controversial order. I sincerely regretted making that mistake. But I view my mistakes as a clear opportunity to learn and improve.”

Joshua Tardy, a Newport lawyer and former Republican legislator who is chairman of the governor’s judicial advisory committee, which vets judicial nominees, said the committee took concerns expressed about how Moskowitz handles family cases seriously.

“The committee felt an obligation to determine the veracity of the complaints about Judge Moskowitz,” Tardy told the committee. “I assure you that they have been taken seriously, and we have done our due diligence. We did not make a quick decision, but it was an easy decision once we had information.”

Moskowitz also was endorsed by the Maine State Bar Association and the Maine Trial Lawyers Association. The presidents of both organizations said they sought out members to ask about their experiences before Moskowitz and he was praised resoundingly.

Widespread reports from informants whom we know well have experienced in his court a repeated pattern of rudeness and disrespect, failure to follow the law.

The last time the committee rejected a nomination was in the late 1980s, according to Rep. Barry Hobbins, D-Saco, who has been a member of the Legislature since the 1970s.”

Read more HERE.

MPBN reports “Michael Welch, president of the Maine Trial Lawyers Association, said “We all make mistakes. How do you deal with it?” His organization endorsed Moskowitz’s reappointment because of his outstanding abilities as a judge.”

State Sen. David Dutremble, a Biddeford Democrat, says he had been approached by a number of people with complaints about Moskowitz and got no assistance from the Administrative Office of the Courts or the governor’s office when he tried to investigate those complaints. Dutremble was critical of the politics involved in judicial appointments.

“Attempts to escape politics inevitably result in heeding the advice of a narrow group of decision makers that express the opinions of special interests of segments. In Maine, the segment that votes on the judge is the bar – especially those members who are actively political within the bar,” Dutremble said. “The public and the ‘pro se’ users are excluded from the process.”

Read more HERE.

PPH reports “Attorney Joshua Tardy, who is chairman of Gov. Paul LePage’s Judicial Selection Committee, said his group conducted a thorough review before deciding to recommend Moskowitz.

“It was not a quick decision to be blunt, but it was an easy decision after all the deliberation. Judge Moskowitz is truly deserving of nomination,” Tardy said. “Our committee has received wide spread consensus and feedback that he is fair, that he is smart. He is honest. He is efficient.”

Other attorneys who spoke in favor of Moskowitz included David Levesque, president of the Maine State Bar Association; Robert Ruffner; Michael Welch, president of the Maine Trial Lawyers Association; Judy Potter; Kenneth Altshuler; Cumberland County District Attorney Stephanie Anderson; York County District Attorney Kathryn Slattery, Gerald Conley; Kristine Hanly; Diane Dusini; Robert Crowley, a retired judge; ; Ardith Keef and JohnWebb.

Notably, attorney Matthew Nichols, Webb’s law partner at Nichols and Webb, wrote a contradictory letter to the Judiciary Committee in which he said Moskowitz is “not a good judge.”

“If I had only my bad experiences with Judge Moskowitz, I would likely not be writing to you. But my own experiences have been echoed by countless other attorneys ranging from criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors, litigants and family law attorneys alike,” Nichols wrote in a letter dated May 4. “

The chairman of the committee, Sen. David Burns, R-Washington, on Thursday strictly enforced a three-minute time limit for testimony of Moskowitz’s opponents. But Burns allowed many attorneys in favor of Moskowitz to speak much longer.

Jerome Collins, who organizes an advocacy group called Maine Guardian Ad Litem Alerts, said he surveyed many citizens, as the Maine Bar Association, surveyed lawyers. He said citizens who appeared before Moskowitz who wanted to talk about him were those who felt wronged. He said that’s the opposite of lawyers who mostly only wanted to speak if they had something complimentary to say about the judge.

“What you really need is a legislative audit of the court to get the answer of what’s really going on. You need to conduct an in depth audit,” Collins said.

Other opponents who spoke against Moskowitz were Sen. David Dutremble, D-Biddeford; Falmouth activist Michael Doyle and Scarborough resident Robert Baizley.

None of the committee members asked Moskowitz any questions at the hearing.”

Moskowitz’s only supporter who was not a lawyer was Sen. Linda Valentino, D-Saco, who described herself as friends with Moskowitz.

Read more HERE.

CHANNEL 8 news report on Judge Moskowitz, view HERE.
A mistake? He’s sorry? Sorry doesn’t cut it!

Judge Moskowitz Finally Gets Caught By Someone Other Than FTM Running His Kangaroo Courtroom, click here.

Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz Apologized And Acknowledged That His Order Was Not Lawful, click here.

Judicial Confirmation Hearing – Judge Jeffrey H. Moskowitz Thursday, May 07, 2015, click here.

Maine Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz Comes Under Review At Public Forum, click here.

Public Exposure Moves Maine’s Attorney General Janet Mills,click here.

PPH Reporter Scott Dolan Presented With Freedom Of Information Award For Challenging Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz’s Gag Order, click here.

Judge Donald Marden’s Cabbage Is Shredded, click here.

Have You Been Harmed By Maine’s Judicial System? Click here.

IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT ON THE BENCH?

Tribal Representatives Withdraw From Maine Legislature

PPH reports “The Penobscot and Passamaquoddy tribes withdrew their representatives to the Legislature on Monday in response to what leaders said is a dangerous deterioration in the relationship between the sovereign tribes and the state.

Legislative records show that two tribes have sent representatives to the Legislature since the early 1800s. Their role and recognition by state government has been tempestuous and varied, however. The Penobscots first sent representatives in 1823. The Passamaquoddies sent representatives in 1842.” This article has been updated.

PPH reports “A day after withdrawing their representatives from the Maine legislature, three of the state’s four Indian tribes resolved Wednesday to no longer recognize the authority of state officials, legislators and courts to “define our sovereignty or culture or to interfere with our self-governing rights.”

The three tribes also called on the federal government to intervene in their increasingly heated disputes with Gov. Paul LePage and Attorney General Janet Mills over the meaning of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980, asking for a congressional inquiry. In a joint declaration, they asked for a “review of the actions of Maine that have resulted in a diminishment of our rights as federally recognized, sovereign Indian troes and of the adverse impacts upon our cultures, rights and resources.”

In their declaration, the tribes charged that the state has repeatedly encroached on their sovereign powers, land and resources, seeking “to perpetuate us as wards of the State of Maine.”’ Read more HERE.

MAINE INDIAN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT – Title 30 §6201.

§6203. Definitions – Note Section 4. – Laws of the State. “Laws of the State” means the Constitution and all statutes, rules or regulations and the common law of the State and its political subdivisions, and subsequent amendments thereto or judicial interpretations thereof.

Related: Act Concerning The Separation Of The District Of Maine From Massachusetts Proper (1816), click here.

Russell Means: Welcome To The Reservation, click here.

Published in: on June 1, 2015 at 5:11 pm  Leave a Comment  

Has Maine Senator Stan Gerzofsky Committed a Crime?

Senator Gerzofsky, recently gave an on-camera interview to WCSH Television, in relation to the recent public hearing on LD 652, known as the Constitutional Carry bill. In this recorded interview Senator Gerzofsky stated:

“I have a list, it’s a substantial list, of the permits that were turned down just this last year. Where people are being turned down for legitimate reasons.”

25 MRSA 2006 provides that:
“All applications, documents made part of the application, refusals, and any information of record collected by the issuing authority during the process of ascertaining whether an applicant is of good moral character and meets the additional requirements of sections 2003 and 2005 are confidential and are not public records”.

Violation of this confidentiality provision is a Class E crime.

Gun Owners of Maine has filed a Freedom of Access Act Request to the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety. They are asking the committee and the President of the Senate…”Has the Senator admitted to committing a crime?”

Read more HERE.

Published in: on April 15, 2015 at 3:24 pm  Leave a Comment  

Maine Senate BAR Member, Roger Katz, Proposing Per Diem Compensation For Active Retired Judges From $300 Per Day To $500 Per Day!

Note – the latest Judiciary Committee schedule states the hearing is at 2:00 p.m. Those attending the public hearing should be there at 1:00 p.m….just in case.

LD 731 Sponsor Sen. Roger Katz of Kennebec – Cosponsored by Representative Barry HOBBINS of Saco and Senators: David BURNS of Washington, Dawn HILL of York, Chris JOHNSON of Lincoln, Representative: Matthew MOONEN of Portland

Public hearing: Tuesday, Mar 31, 2015, 1:00p Room 438 State House

Senator Roger Katz (attorney) (R-Kennebec)
Senator Dawn Hill (attorney-inactive) (D-York)
Rep. Barry Hobbins (attorney) (D-Saco) – House Chair of the Judiciary Committee
Senator David Burns (R-Washington) – Senate Chair of the Judiciary Committee
Representative Matthew W. Moonen (D-Portland) – member of the Judiciary Committee
Senator Christopher K. Johnson (D-Lincoln) – member of the Judiciary Committee

This proposed legislation further proves the “double standards”, whose “interests” it serves and begs many questions.

Judges retire, receive a pension, return to the bench and get more compensation…as this bill raises the per diem compensation for active retired judges and justices from $300 per day to $500 per day!

BAR members proposing raises for their “club”members.

When judges return to work is there a reduction in their pensions?

What about people on social security (living on less than a livable wage) who go back and are subject to reduction?

How about judges who strip people of entitled pensions in their decisions/judgments, causing financial hardship?

How about the VA which delays veterans’ pension claims for years/decades, causing financial hardship?

Ask your representative for help with these issues and you’ll get the standard answer “there’s nothing I can do.” Yet they can do plenty when it comes to their buddies.

Wouldn’t this bill in itself be considered fraudulent legislation, since it’s presented by BAR card carrying attorneys? A conflict of interest? A vested interest which would constitute a racketeering enterprise (RICO)?

Could this be considered embezzlement from the taxpayers who paid their salaries, their pensions and are now paying retirement and salary? Wouldn’t it be nice if we all could do that?

Are they paying taxes on either one?

Public Hearing: Maine State and Local Government Committee – LD 641 RESOLUTION, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine To Elect 2 Senators from Each County, Sponsor Sen. Davis of Piscataquis

LD 641 – Cosponsored by Representative LONG of Sherman and Senators: BURNS of Washington, EDGECOMB of Aroostook, SAVIELLO of Franklin, WHITTEMORE of Somerset, WILLETTE of Aroostook, Representatives: McCABE of Skowhegan, SHERMAN of Hodgdon, SHORT of Pittsfield

Wednesday, Mar 25, 2015, 1:00p Cross Building, Room 214

There are 16 counties in Maine.

There are 35 members in Maine State Senate. (List)

This bill would eliminate 3 paid positions.

Published in: on March 20, 2015 at 11:13 am  Comments (1)  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 230 other followers

%d bloggers like this: