Das State of Maine

When Stephen King would depict parts of Maine as horrible I thought it was fiction. Now I know better.

Two words come to mind: collusion and conspiracy.

Maine steps on the rights of men accused of domestic violence

Maine Chief Justice Leigh Saufley

I see that Mary N. Kellett is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to misconduct in Maine,which means this is business as usual:

Maine’s chief justice changes bail rules for domestic violence suspects
By Judy Harrison, BDN Staff

Posted Feb. 09, 2012, at 1:28 p.m.
Last modified Feb. 09, 2012, at 6:27 p.m.

AUGUSTA, Maine — The chief justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court said Thursday that the court system would work with the governor and lawmakers to curb domestic violence in Maine.

In her annual State of the Judiciary address, Leigh I. Saufley announced that, effective immediately, bail commissioners may not set bail in domestic violence-related cases unless they have access to the defendant’s criminal history in Maine.

“We know that one of the most important tools in averting repeated violence is for judicial officers to have the criminal history records of the person charged with domestic violence,” she said. “Without that history, informed decisions cannot be made.”

Bail commissioners sometimes don’t have that information because of varying legal interpretations, technological limitations, law enforcement staffing limitations and miscommunication, according to Saufley.

“But frankly, it doesn’t matter why bail commissioners don’t have the records,” she said. “By law, you have mandated policies by which criminal history records will be relayed to the bail commissioners. To make well-informed decisions, they must have the information. Too often, they are not receiving the reports. That is simply not acceptable.”

If a bail commissioner does not have a defendant’s criminal history, the defendant will have to remain in jail and appear before a judge within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, Saufley said at a press conference after her speech.

I see so it's screw the Constitution. That sounds like business as usual for Maine. Chances are only men are going to get fucked over by this so bitches like this judge have no problem fucking over men.

Gov. Paul LePage, who has made eradicating domestic violence a priority for his administration, praised her action in a press release issued Thursday afternoon.

“I applaud Chief Justice Saufley for taking a proactive step which will ensure the safety of the public,” he said. “Any type of violence against a person is a threat to their well-being and we know domestic violence can be particularly harmful and escalate quickly for those who are in relationships. I commend the leadership of the chief justice for this renewed focus on domestic violence and implementation of meaningful change which will benefit many Mainers.”

In a statement issued after the address, House Minority Leader Emily Cain, D-Orono, also expressed support for Saufley’s desire to curb domestic violence.

“I look forward to working with the Chief Justice to strengthen … protections for victims of domestic violence,” said Cain, who has introduced emergency legislation to prevent domestic violence this year in response to the tragic event in Dexter last June in which Steven Lake murdered his wife, Amy Lake, and the couple’s two children before turning the gun on himself.

“The Dexter tragedy rightfully put our entire system under a microscope,” Cain said. “We know that we must work together [to] do more to protect victims and prevent harm.”

What do they do about Vledek Filler case and others like it? Oh yeah,they sweep it under the rug whlle saying "nothing to see here".

The Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee will hold public hearings Monday on Cain’s bill and other bills concerning domestic violence.

The chief justice’s action raised concerns among criminal defense attorneys.

“I am deeply concerned that the likely effect here is that people merely accused of crimes are going to be held without any bail whatsoever,” Walter McKee of Augusta said in an email. “That’s flatly unfair, unconstitutional and disappointing. The overwhelming majority of those arrested are going to be held while waiting for information that will have zero impact on any bail issue.”

The president of the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also expressed concern about Saufley’s directive.

“Holding an accused on a crime that is bailable as a matter of right until criminal history information is received is not a novel concept — the problem is that technical limitations on the sharing of this type of information between law enforcement and bail commissioners results in justice being denied and constitutional rights being violated,” Sarah Churchill of Portland said Thursday in an email.

“What the Chief Justice has proposed can be done without violating the rights of the accused if changes are made to how information is shared,” she continued. “I have concerns about how quickly those types of changes can be made and how the potential violations of constitutional rights of the accused are going to be handled in this interim period of time.”

Saufley did say that the rights of the accused guaranteed by the Maine and U.S. constitutions must be preserved and enforced.

“To be clear, in our efforts to eradicate domestic violence, we must not allow a rush to judgment to sweep in the innocent,” she told lawmakers.

"We must preserve and enforce the rights guaranteed by the Maine and federal constitutions. And we must carefully balance the rights of the accused against public safety and protection for victims.”

What she didn't say: "he prceeding is my insincere lip-service to male victims of this policy now leave me alone"

Saufley also said that the court system should be involved in finding solutions to domestic violence.

“While the courts are neutral fact-finders, courts are not neutral on the fact of, or the solutions for, domestic violence,” she said. “Chief justices across the country are looking for ways to better identify the potentially lethal cases.”

Actually the court is supposed to be neutral. The only one who should be conducting themselves as prosecutors are prosecutors. The day the court becomes a co-prosecutor the defendent is fucked.

Saufley suggested using principles outlined by the national Conference of Chief Justices as a guide in crafting legislation and implementing changes to the court system. They are:

• Families in crisis must be able to easily access courts.

• Judges must have comprehensive information on prior court orders and any history of violence in the family.

• Convicted abusers must be held accountable.

• Judges can be catalysts to enhance intergovernmental collaboration for improvement.

What about false accusers? Are they listed as criminals? Didn't think so.

New initiatives in 2012 that Saufley announced Thursday include audio web streaming of oral arguments in appeals to the state supreme court and a pilot program that would direct phone calls from people in Androscoggin County from the clerks’ offices in Lewiston and Auburn to three court employees who would answer questions, help them find information and more easily negotiate the court system. This would free up clerks to work on cases already filed with fewer interruptions, she said.

In addition, Saufley praised lawmakers Thursday for restoring baseline funding of $55 million a year to the courts after a series of cuts in the previous administration left 60 clerk and security jobs vacant because of a hiring freeze.

She's getting more money to fuck over men and that makes her happy. Time to bring on the Maine witch hunt.

As of July 1, 2011, the start of the fiscal year, those positions were filled, allowing for an increase in entry screening and efficiency in clerks’ offices around the state, she said.

Sen. David R. Hastings III, R-Fryeburg, who is chairman of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee and an attorney, said after the speech that funding the court system’s baseline budget “has been crucial in providing access to justice, especially in rural area.”

To view the Maine Judicial Branch 2011 Annual Report, click here.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source:click here

Judge improperly has activist arrested

Adam Mueller, aka Ademo Freeman, stood inside the Keene District Courthouse in New Hampshire, waiting for Judge Edward Burke to step inside so he could ask him a question.

Less than two minutes later, he was arrested for threatening the judge, a felony charge called “improper influence.”

But Mueller had his camera rolling, so he captured the entire exchange on video.

And there is absolutely no evidence that he threatened Burke.

Here is that exchange, but you can also hear it for yourself in the above video:

(Judge Burke enters the building)

Mueller: “Judge Burke, can I ask you a few questions about a hat … and how that constitutes contempt.”

(Burke ignores him and heads for the stairs)

Mueller: “You think people want to pay for somebody to be in jail for five days for wearing a hat?”

(Burke continues to ignore him as he walks up the stairs with Mueller walking behind him)

Mueller: “It’s kind of ridiculous to waste tax-payer money on something like that, isn’t it?

(Burke reaches the top of the stairs)

Mueller: “Sir, I just want to have a conversation.”

(Burke opens the door and motions to the bailiff)

Burke: “Bailiff, bailiff, this person is threatening me about a decision I just made.”

Mueller: “I’m not threatening you ….”

Mueller is then taken into custody and thrown in jail where he spent two nights before he was bailed on a donated $5,000 bond.

On Wednesday, after viewing the above video, the district attorney’s office dropped the charges against him

But that hasn’t solved the issue that Burke had Mueller falsely arrested.

And it hasn’t solved the issue that Burke directed a court order that now forbids photography or videography in the Keene courthouse.

According to the court order, which was filed July 1, 2011, three days after Mueller’s arrest.

In recent months certain members of the public have caused disruptions of the court's ability to conduct business in Keene. In addition to their refusal to abide by court rules related to the conduct of trials and conduct in the courtroom in general, these members of the public have also congregated in the court's lobby for extended periods of time making it difficult for other members of the public to conduct business with the court and, in particular, creating conditions and disturbances which have obstructed court staff from performing their duties in an orderly way.

Additionally, these members of the public have, on occasion, accosted the presiding judge as he enters and leaves the building in which the court is housed, creating an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation and a legitimate fear for the safety and well-being of the judicial and nonjudicial staff at this court.

Based upon these conditions and facts, and mindful of the holding of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in State v. Moquin, 105 N.H. 9 at 11 (1963) that,

" ... it is the duty and responsibility of courts to be alert to protect the judicial processes from being brought into disrepute and to act vigorously when confronted with acts or conduct which tend to obstruct or interfere with the due and orderly administration of justice ... "

it is ordered as follows:

1. No cameras or audio equipment may be used at any time in the court's lobby or anywhere in the public area of the court's leased premises;

There are some exceptions, which can be read by clicking on the court order in the above link.

William Toler of the Independent Register reported that the ban may be unconstitutional.

"A blanket ban likely would be unconstitutional,” says David Hudson from the First Amendment Center. “Trial judges are granted discretion to determine whether cameras might unduly prejudice court proceedings but generally they must make particularized findings, such as whether there would be prejudice, whether the ban is no broader than necessary and whether there are reasonable alternatives to not permitting coverage.”

As I’ve reported in previous stories, the tensions between Burke and the Free Staters have been ongoing for the past few years as Keene becomes a growing community of activists.

Many of the activists have long accused Burke of being a bully, but it is also obvious that they try their best to test his authority by not removing caps in the courtroom or refusing to disclose their name when arrested.

And those incidents are debatable (we all have our issues we fight for and those don’t rank up there for me).

But here we have a clear case of a judge having a citizen falsely arrested on felony charges.

That issue is not debatable. Burke blatantly lied about Mueller’s actions.

With a judge like that, there is simply no expectation of justice in his courtroom.

Source:click here

Court order prohibiting videotaping here

Corrupt judges get sued

Los Angeles, CA -- On June 15, at the Los Angeles Law Library, Dennis Ettlin and Daniel Cooper announce the filing of 8 civil law suits against 8 Los Angeles County judges. The 8 civil suits seek $38 million for civil rights violations and damages for prejudice against fathers. The lawsuits highlight judicial bias bought by L.A. County bribes and begin a fourth prong in the campaign to stop judicial bribes in California. The first effort by Judicial Watch succeeded with the Sturgeon I and II cases in getting the bribes ruled un-constitutional. The second effort, on April 13th, was the Judicial Watch demand for District Attorney Steve Cooley to seek the return of $350 million to the county.

The third prong is a legal challenge to void the orders of bribed judges.
The Appellate Court, in its Sturgeon II decision, called for this fourth effort. This first wave of law suits holds the judges personally liable for the loss of constitutional rights and for damages from the specific biases favoring Los Angeles County. All citizens of California are the victims of this “fraud on the court” and the biases perpetrated by judges.

The eight civil lawsuits name 5 L.A. Superior Court judges and 3 Appellate Court judges. Damages are sought for denial of the constitutional rights to due process and for specific damages due to biases in family law, traffic fines,domestic violence and gender discrimination. Our goal is to have a citizen jury re-affirm the illegality of the judicial bribes and to begin the process of compensating the victims. Further info is located at:click here

Original press release:click here

Way to go NCFM-LA,this is indeed good news and I never tire of reading good news. Congrats again because you guys deserve it. For the table listing the judges ,their bribes and the money they got sued for click next to "original press release".