Mary Ann Lynch
Government and Media Counsel
Maine Judicial Branch
Dear Mary Ann,
It was a pleasure to talk with you by phone on Wednesday afternoon and to share a few thoughts about the very troubling 74% ‘pro se’ problem in Maine’s family courts. 74% is a powerful number that speaks to a socially unacceptable differential status of citizens/voters in the face of justice. My purpose in calling you was to be a “catalyst” for broad based problem-solving concerning the ‘pro se’ phenomenon. It seems to be growing numerically by leaps and bounds, despite valiant, well-documented efforts by your associates to contain it.
To me, as a former public health planner, there appears to be a lack of data about the nature of this problem that would be a vital necessity in designing a strategic intervention to reduce this unacceptable 74% number. The problem of ‘pro se’ numbers also appears to suffer (paradoxically) from well-intended attempts to try to solve the ‘pro’ se’ problem with inadequate problem definition. It puts “answers to the problem” before adequate “problem definition”, and thereby places the cart in front of the horse. Without wishing to disparage the ongoing work being attempted by those associated with the Maine Judicial Branch and the Maine Bar, I would suggest that there are some serious planning questions that need research and study before seeking answers.
Here, in brief, are a few of my thoughts, a recap and elaboration on our earlier phone discussion:
WHAT SHOULD THE GOALS FOR ANY ‘PRO SE’ INTERVENTION BE? In any thoughtful, large scale, organized government plan, one needs clearly stated goals to aim for- and to keep the movement towards goals on target. I would suggest- tentatively - that the aim for the ‘pro se’ problem should be to reduce the incidence and prevalence of ‘pro se’ as a phenomenon in Maine family courts - “to move the “numbers needle” backwards”. To use a public health conceptualization, one might say ‘pro se’ is a growing epidemiological problem. What is the “epidemic” about, how is it spread over Maine’s “at risk” populations, who is vulnerable, what factors are causing it, what exacerbates its growth, what diminishes its growth and what “interventions” might well organized data suggest would be most effective? To that end, I suggest a sample of some very generic questions that an epidemiologist might ask before intervening in any epidemic.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF MAINE’S FAMILY COURT ‘PRO SE’ PROBLEM? Beyond anecdote, who are the 74% of people who do ‘pro se’’ in Maine’s family courts? What sort of demographics do they represent? What ages, occupations, education levels, financial status, duration of marriage, number of children, geographic locations, previous marriages/relationships, health/mental health status? What are the reasons that they are doing ‘pro se’? Financial reasons (examples)? Or other reasons? All of these data would be useful tools in shaping rational problem-solving. Without such data, solving problems can only be based on anecdote, guess work, personal impressions, prejudice and bias. Bad information, as everyone knows, leads to bad answers!
DOES HAVING A LAWYER MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUTCOME OF DIVORCE AND CUSTODY? What is the statistical record for various types of outcomes for ‘pro se’ litigants? How do things go when one party has a lawyer and the other doesn’t? What factors favor what outcome when both parties have a lawyer? Are there statistics for law firms and lawyers showing records of wins and losses? How do ‘pro se’’, lawyers, and judges view the contest?
HOW DO ‘PRO SE’ LITIGANTS FEEL ABOUT THEIR COURT EXPERIENCE? Were they helped to do pre-court paperwork? Was the help that they received effective or was it confusing? Did they get help or coaching before going to court? From what kinds of helping sources? How do ‘pro se’ litigants feel about their courtroom experience? Were they put at ease by the judge? Were they treated respectfully? Did they encounter judicial hostility or overt rejection? Were they listened to? How did they handle evidentiary challenges (“object, object, object!”) from opposing counsel? Were they included in all conferences and administrative issues? Did they feel that they received treatment in court equal to opposing counsel (if there was one)? Do they have ideas for simplifying the process for making it less time consuming, fairer and with happier resolution? How were they and their children impacted by the personal stress of the ‘pro se’ experience and its aftermath?
HOW DO FAMILY COURT JUDGES FEEL ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH ‘PRO SE’ LITIGANTS? What kinds of problems do they experience? What impact does ‘pro se’ have on courtroom procedures and process? What are the biggest challenges in this situation for judges? What would they suggest to solve some of the problems associated with ‘pro se’? Do they have suggestions that might diminish the incidence of ‘pro se’ ?
HOW DOES THE DIVORCE BAR SEE THE ‘PRO SE’ PROBLEM? Does everyone in a divorce and custody situation need a lawyer? What type of cases may not need a lawyer? What about pre-court legal “coaching”? What about paraprofessional lawyers? What about defining custody as 50-50 in all cases- except proven abuse? What other ideas? What about disincentives for lawyers? What about fee caps on all cases, or needing certification from a judge to bill beyond a certain $$ figure?
Please, do not take the preceding paragraphs as any sort of concrete proposal. The remarks above are offered only as possible examples of epidemiological data for use in a very classic, rational problem solving process. The questions are more to get a conversation about planning going- or to say, we don’t want to go there, because...
To my thinking, all three branches of government should be involved in any such a conversation leading to a plan for action. The core issue at the heart of the ‘pro se’ problem problem is about how we are to treat Maine families and children in the throes of divorce and custody. It is a question about the well being of a sub-population of huge importance to the future of Maine. Interest in the topic goes way beyond the interest and practices of one branch of government and one profession. Ideally all three branches of government should work on the issue and should sponsor the supportive legislation to enable the work. As to the question of who might best do such a study or variations thereof in the interest of the public, my vote would be for OPEGA; others might have other choices. My personal aim would be to eliminate the dominance of “special interests” of stake holders from the “divorce industry”, who have been the dominant players heretofore. They don’t represent the people.
I hope this gives a bit more flesh on the bare bones we discussed on Wednesday? It is still skeletal! It is just a beginning of a much needed larger conversation.
Thanks for your time, your always valuable perspective and your in depth knowledge of the Judicial Branch - and Maine government.
Sincerely,
Jerry Collins
CC: MeGALert
If you have had a bad experience in the Family Court systems or with a Guardian ad litem. Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Showing posts with label Judicial Branch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judicial Branch. Show all posts
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
A Basic Tool Kit for Grass Roots Family Court Reform
We have been asked by many people how we got MeGALalert, our Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform program, started and what beginning grassroots activists should do to get going? We grew our program, MeGALalert by stages and degrees, learning by trial and error as we grew. We quickly set two fixed goals: (1) education of the public about the need for reform of family courts and Guardians ad litem, and (2) legislation to produce change. We feel that you can’t have legislated change for these dysfunctional systems without an enlightened, aware public that will support and push for change. Legislation also requires that we educate legislators about the family court and Guardian ad litem problems, and also that we help voters connect with legislators and- as constituents/voters - express their views and their wishes. Family court systems are not anything that can be “fixed” quickly, because there are huge systemic problems and powerful internal forces that support the dysfunction of family courts, and that keep dysfunction alive, well and growing. Long ago, we were instructed by one sophisticated lawyer: “Follow the money!”
What we are outlining is a well planned systems intervention in a massive system, and it cannot be done quickly or without a well designed strategy and tactics, nor can these be effective without tools for intervention in all parts of the system. Obviously, this is a complex undertaking. We are always glad to share our thoughts and our approach, but to do so would take more than a simple, single blog posting. We’ll start by giving a brief list of important generic systems intervention “must have” “tools” that you may find useful in changing family court systems:
1. A blog or two (or more) with different focuses that will serve multiple purposes: give news, present issues and problems, make proposals for change and allow for public "conversations".
2. A Facebook page dedicated to court reform in your state, which can present more short-term "reform news" and sharing.
3. Building a base of credible political supporters, larger numbers of both friends and “victims” of the family court system. E-mail addresses (and list-servs) for this group are critical, precious, invaluable . One rule to follow: ALWAYS BLIND COPY (bcc) MASS MAILINGS FOR PRIVACY). Telephone numbers and physical addresses are useful also. We started with our family court story (disaster) in a local weekly paper that got the attention of other family court “victims” who contacted us - and the rest is history as the numbers grew and grew.
4. Once you get stared, a core group of friends with a "work ethic", who can be counted on to help with some of the "heavy lifting". Volunteer manpower, which can stay on top of what's happening in state government that may impact on users of family courts.
5. Getting to know your State Rep and State Senator and continuously educating them on the court reform issues is critical. Getting to know other legislators, especially those who have gone through divorce and custody horrors. “Victims” of family courts in the legislature are “golden”. You also need to know which legislators are your enemies and “frenemies” , Which legislators will sabotage your efforts and support the ‘status quo’? HINT: look for legislators who are lawyers!
6. Getting to know your state Governor and your Chief Justice. Governors can submit bills and can veto bills, but they too need education. Justices often want changes in the courts but they are constrained by their political base: the state bar and state lawyers who live handsomely off of family courts. They hear appeals form family courts and their judgments become case law.
7. Building relations with the all elements of the media. Know reporters, feed them stories. Many court reporters are intimidated about journalistically challenging the courts and getting “shut out” of court news thereafter, but sometimes your news may tempt them out of timidity. Small, local, weekly papers, we find, are most open to reporting our experience - and people do read them. Give them stories. This got us going. Don’t forget social media in all of its many forms.
8. Organize intimate, small showings of "Divorce Corp", the DVD, it is very educational, packs a punch and ought to be a "must see" for legislators and government decision makers. It is a great “tool” for quick information and attitude change.
9. Make your most important goal: public education about the largely unknown scandal that is family courts in America. Without extensive education of the public you go nowhere.
10. Communicate, communicate, communicate. Keep everyone who writes to support you in the loop, up on the news - good and bad. Answer ALL e-mails asap.
11. Don't worry about money or setting up a nonprofit. We've done it with no money and no corporation. Money and non-profits have their own problems and politics. We've done it with PEOPLE, who are FRIENDS. The most successful movement that produced massive political change was created by Vaclav Havel, former, Czech president, Nobel prize winner, writer and political dissident.
Finally, don't be discouraged by setbacks. It is going to be a long term project. Family courts have solid support of a huge, wealthy industry ($50 billion), the “divorce industry”, these lawyers, like the “robber barons” of old, are not going to yield quickly or easily. But ... we have human and moral "right" on our side, and, once we connect, there are more of US than there are of THEM! Vaclav Havel called it “The power of the powerless”.
In the long run, if we keep at it , like others before us who fought injustice...
"WE SHALL OVERCOME ... SOMEDAY..."
MeGALalert can be reached by emailing us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or by finding us on Facebook. There is no magic bullet that can be used to help you with the issues you and your family are facing. We offer support and help in dealing with the family court system.
What we are outlining is a well planned systems intervention in a massive system, and it cannot be done quickly or without a well designed strategy and tactics, nor can these be effective without tools for intervention in all parts of the system. Obviously, this is a complex undertaking. We are always glad to share our thoughts and our approach, but to do so would take more than a simple, single blog posting. We’ll start by giving a brief list of important generic systems intervention “must have” “tools” that you may find useful in changing family court systems:
1. A blog or two (or more) with different focuses that will serve multiple purposes: give news, present issues and problems, make proposals for change and allow for public "conversations".
2. A Facebook page dedicated to court reform in your state, which can present more short-term "reform news" and sharing.
3. Building a base of credible political supporters, larger numbers of both friends and “victims” of the family court system. E-mail addresses (and list-servs) for this group are critical, precious, invaluable . One rule to follow: ALWAYS BLIND COPY (bcc) MASS MAILINGS FOR PRIVACY). Telephone numbers and physical addresses are useful also. We started with our family court story (disaster) in a local weekly paper that got the attention of other family court “victims” who contacted us - and the rest is history as the numbers grew and grew.
4. Once you get stared, a core group of friends with a "work ethic", who can be counted on to help with some of the "heavy lifting". Volunteer manpower, which can stay on top of what's happening in state government that may impact on users of family courts.
5. Getting to know your State Rep and State Senator and continuously educating them on the court reform issues is critical. Getting to know other legislators, especially those who have gone through divorce and custody horrors. “Victims” of family courts in the legislature are “golden”. You also need to know which legislators are your enemies and “frenemies” , Which legislators will sabotage your efforts and support the ‘status quo’? HINT: look for legislators who are lawyers!
6. Getting to know your state Governor and your Chief Justice. Governors can submit bills and can veto bills, but they too need education. Justices often want changes in the courts but they are constrained by their political base: the state bar and state lawyers who live handsomely off of family courts. They hear appeals form family courts and their judgments become case law.
7. Building relations with the all elements of the media. Know reporters, feed them stories. Many court reporters are intimidated about journalistically challenging the courts and getting “shut out” of court news thereafter, but sometimes your news may tempt them out of timidity. Small, local, weekly papers, we find, are most open to reporting our experience - and people do read them. Give them stories. This got us going. Don’t forget social media in all of its many forms.
8. Organize intimate, small showings of "Divorce Corp", the DVD, it is very educational, packs a punch and ought to be a "must see" for legislators and government decision makers. It is a great “tool” for quick information and attitude change.
9. Make your most important goal: public education about the largely unknown scandal that is family courts in America. Without extensive education of the public you go nowhere.
10. Communicate, communicate, communicate. Keep everyone who writes to support you in the loop, up on the news - good and bad. Answer ALL e-mails asap.
11. Don't worry about money or setting up a nonprofit. We've done it with no money and no corporation. Money and non-profits have their own problems and politics. We've done it with PEOPLE, who are FRIENDS. The most successful movement that produced massive political change was created by Vaclav Havel, former, Czech president, Nobel prize winner, writer and political dissident.
Finally, don't be discouraged by setbacks. It is going to be a long term project. Family courts have solid support of a huge, wealthy industry ($50 billion), the “divorce industry”, these lawyers, like the “robber barons” of old, are not going to yield quickly or easily. But ... we have human and moral "right" on our side, and, once we connect, there are more of US than there are of THEM! Vaclav Havel called it “The power of the powerless”.
In the long run, if we keep at it , like others before us who fought injustice...
"WE SHALL OVERCOME ... SOMEDAY..."
MeGALalert can be reached by emailing us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or by finding us on Facebook. There is no magic bullet that can be used to help you with the issues you and your family are facing. We offer support and help in dealing with the family court system.
Friday, May 31, 2013
LD 47 - An Open Letter to President of the Maine Senate Justin Alfond
The following is a letter that was sent to Senator Justin Alfond asking for the reasons for tabling a bill that parents and the Judicial Branch do not want:
Subject: LD 47: Please, "kill" it!
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OF THE MAINE SENATE, JUSTIN ALFOND
President of the Maine Senate
Justin Alfond
Dear Senator Alfond,
Re LD 47 a bill to extend the Parent Coordinator program.
I am writing to add my name to the growing list of Maine people, who are distressed by the current turn of events surrounding LD 47. The bill seeks to extend the parent coordinator law until 2016, pending further “study”. It adds budget for a “supervisor”, and it seeks to determine if the program “has benefit”. We ask, “benefit for whom and judged by whom?” Are we talking about obvious “benefits” for Parent coordinators and lawyers, or “benefits” for the opposing public? To loosely paraphrase an expression from recent years, is it about protecting the famous 1% or the 99%?.
What is perplexing to growing numbers of the public is why this bill was tabled in the Senate- as we understand it from several sources, on orders from you through the caucus (on a motion from Senator Valentino). From whence comes the groundswell to save this bill? it is widely said that the groundswell for saving LD 47 comes from Rep Terry Hayes, a Guardian ad litem/Parental Coordinator herself, and Reps DeChant and Moonen, who were the minority opposing the majority vote to kill LD 47 in the Judiciary Committee. It is also said that there is a group of Portland lawyers, who have a financial and professional interest in saving the bill. It is last ditch lobbying by special interests for their personal “income preservation”.
Our question as observers is whether lobbying will prevail over the classical legislative process, which has voiced an opinion quite contrary to the “special interests”. We also can’t avoid the impression that by tabling a vote on LD 47, you are backing those with a “special interest” in it. We are also concerned that the proposed amendment to LD 47 is so shamefully bogus as to insult the intelligence of both the legislature and the public.
As we understand the amendment to LD 47, it proposes a supervisor (or coordinator) to have n unspecified role doing unspecified things with Parent Coordinators for a period until 2016. As you may be aware there are no job descriptions for the proposed supervisors or for their putative supervisees, nor are there any existing rules or standard for supervisor or Parent Coordinator supervisee, so supervision become a very mystical thing. What would the supervisor do in actual supervision without the guidelines of a job description or rules and standards? Furthermore, for whom would the supervisor of Parent Coordinators work (organizational chain of command)? How would “due process” issues be protected in district court cases? And ... finally, is the Judicial Branch asking for “Coordinators of Parent Coordinators? Have Rep Terry Hayes and the Portland lawyers usurped Mary Ann Lynches role? We have heard further rumors that LD 47 might be embedded in LD 872, Senator Dutremble’s bill. It would be shameful to do this. It would be like grafting an invasive cancer into a healthy body!
Even a superficial analysis of the amendment to LD 47 raises the suspicion that it is so badly conceived, from any functional point of view, that is seems to be a ruse on the part of Guardian ad litem/Parental Coordinator, Rep Hayes to extend the life of a bill that appeared to be going down to a well-deserved legislative death. Rep Hayes has a long experience in the Maine legislature, which makes us wonder whether this bill is offered by her friends in gratitude for her public service and to protect her financially in her old age?
The problems of Parent Coordinators are - if possible - even worse that the Guardian ad litem scandal. Like Guardians ad litem, they have no supervision, no oversight, operate virtually ‘ad lib’ for a year with no fee cap, generating huge fees that impoverish the parties. There are no rules and regulations, no standards. It is a gold mine for the Parent Coordinator - no wonder they are fighting vigorously to preserve this lush source of income. In our opinion it is a license to plunder.
LD 47 and its amendment ought to be “killed” asap! Please, use your leadership to do so. We join other members of the public with the hope that people can count on you to protect them from "special interest" abuse.
Sincerely,
Jerome A Collins, MD
Kennebunkport, Maine
To view the original bill LD47 sponsored by Representative Terry Hayes (Guardian ad litem). The Amendment to LD47.
Subject: LD 47: Please, "kill" it!
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OF THE MAINE SENATE, JUSTIN ALFOND
President of the Maine Senate
Justin Alfond
Dear Senator Alfond,
Re LD 47 a bill to extend the Parent Coordinator program.
I am writing to add my name to the growing list of Maine people, who are distressed by the current turn of events surrounding LD 47. The bill seeks to extend the parent coordinator law until 2016, pending further “study”. It adds budget for a “supervisor”, and it seeks to determine if the program “has benefit”. We ask, “benefit for whom and judged by whom?” Are we talking about obvious “benefits” for Parent coordinators and lawyers, or “benefits” for the opposing public? To loosely paraphrase an expression from recent years, is it about protecting the famous 1% or the 99%?.
What is perplexing to growing numbers of the public is why this bill was tabled in the Senate- as we understand it from several sources, on orders from you through the caucus (on a motion from Senator Valentino). From whence comes the groundswell to save this bill? it is widely said that the groundswell for saving LD 47 comes from Rep Terry Hayes, a Guardian ad litem/Parental Coordinator herself, and Reps DeChant and Moonen, who were the minority opposing the majority vote to kill LD 47 in the Judiciary Committee. It is also said that there is a group of Portland lawyers, who have a financial and professional interest in saving the bill. It is last ditch lobbying by special interests for their personal “income preservation”.
Our question as observers is whether lobbying will prevail over the classical legislative process, which has voiced an opinion quite contrary to the “special interests”. We also can’t avoid the impression that by tabling a vote on LD 47, you are backing those with a “special interest” in it. We are also concerned that the proposed amendment to LD 47 is so shamefully bogus as to insult the intelligence of both the legislature and the public.
As we understand the amendment to LD 47, it proposes a supervisor (or coordinator) to have n unspecified role doing unspecified things with Parent Coordinators for a period until 2016. As you may be aware there are no job descriptions for the proposed supervisors or for their putative supervisees, nor are there any existing rules or standard for supervisor or Parent Coordinator supervisee, so supervision become a very mystical thing. What would the supervisor do in actual supervision without the guidelines of a job description or rules and standards? Furthermore, for whom would the supervisor of Parent Coordinators work (organizational chain of command)? How would “due process” issues be protected in district court cases? And ... finally, is the Judicial Branch asking for “Coordinators of Parent Coordinators? Have Rep Terry Hayes and the Portland lawyers usurped Mary Ann Lynches role? We have heard further rumors that LD 47 might be embedded in LD 872, Senator Dutremble’s bill. It would be shameful to do this. It would be like grafting an invasive cancer into a healthy body!
Even a superficial analysis of the amendment to LD 47 raises the suspicion that it is so badly conceived, from any functional point of view, that is seems to be a ruse on the part of Guardian ad litem/Parental Coordinator, Rep Hayes to extend the life of a bill that appeared to be going down to a well-deserved legislative death. Rep Hayes has a long experience in the Maine legislature, which makes us wonder whether this bill is offered by her friends in gratitude for her public service and to protect her financially in her old age?
The problems of Parent Coordinators are - if possible - even worse that the Guardian ad litem scandal. Like Guardians ad litem, they have no supervision, no oversight, operate virtually ‘ad lib’ for a year with no fee cap, generating huge fees that impoverish the parties. There are no rules and regulations, no standards. It is a gold mine for the Parent Coordinator - no wonder they are fighting vigorously to preserve this lush source of income. In our opinion it is a license to plunder.
LD 47 and its amendment ought to be “killed” asap! Please, use your leadership to do so. We join other members of the public with the hope that people can count on you to protect them from "special interest" abuse.
Sincerely,
Jerome A Collins, MD
Kennebunkport, Maine
To view the original bill LD47 sponsored by Representative Terry Hayes (Guardian ad litem). The Amendment to LD47.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
LD47 An Act to Retain the Postion of Parental Coordiantor has been Reanimated
LD47 has been tabled - this we have been told is done as a curtsey to those who might want to debate the issue. Or for legislators to be given a chance to more closely study the matter before voting on it.
One has to ask why this bill needs to be looked at more closely? On Feb 21, 2013 the Judiciary Committee heard testimony on LD47 "An Act To Retain the Position of Parent Coordinator in the Judicial Branch " most of it from families that had been hurt by the process. Old wounds were opened so that the Committee members could understand the experience. With the exception of two members the Committee voted that the bill ought not to pass (ONTP). Jennifer DeChant and Matthew Moonen voted for the bill.
The bill was killed - or so we thought.
The bill is back - despite being such a disaster of a bill. One that clearly favors Family Lawyers , Guardians ad litem (As represented by Toby Hollander President of the trade organization Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute - MEGALI) and current Parental Coordinators. This bill as sponsored by Teresa Hayes (Guardian ad litem) (Buckfield) had no shred of hope for families. It appears to be back with an amendment that would extend the role of Parental Coordinator out for another 2 years. This to give time to 'study' the effectiveness of this role and provide 'oversight'.
The bill and the amendment are an insult to the families and friends that testified to the experience of having a Parental Coordinator. One has to ask why those Representatives that support this bill hate children but love Family Lawyers?
.
To study the amendment: Committee Amendment
One has to ask why this bill needs to be looked at more closely? On Feb 21, 2013 the Judiciary Committee heard testimony on LD47 "An Act To Retain the Position of Parent Coordinator in the Judicial Branch " most of it from families that had been hurt by the process. Old wounds were opened so that the Committee members could understand the experience. With the exception of two members the Committee voted that the bill ought not to pass (ONTP). Jennifer DeChant and Matthew Moonen voted for the bill.
The bill was killed - or so we thought.
The bill is back - despite being such a disaster of a bill. One that clearly favors Family Lawyers , Guardians ad litem (As represented by Toby Hollander President of the trade organization Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute - MEGALI) and current Parental Coordinators. This bill as sponsored by Teresa Hayes (Guardian ad litem) (Buckfield) had no shred of hope for families. It appears to be back with an amendment that would extend the role of Parental Coordinator out for another 2 years. This to give time to 'study' the effectiveness of this role and provide 'oversight'.
The bill and the amendment are an insult to the families and friends that testified to the experience of having a Parental Coordinator. One has to ask why those Representatives that support this bill hate children but love Family Lawyers?
.
To study the amendment: Committee Amendment
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Violation of Maine's Constitution by Judiciary and Guardians ad litem
The following letter suggest that there are serious issues with regards to LD522 and whether if it is implemented would be a violation of Maine's Constitution. This is not the first time where we have seen what would be an infringement of ones Constitutional rights here in Maine. This though holds the potential of being on a much larger scale.
April 10, 2013
Maine Judicial Committee
100 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333
Dear Judicial Committee Member,
Please find within a friendly reminder regarding LD 522; upon accepting your State of Maine Government position, you took an oath and made a pledge to up hold both the Maine and United States Constitutions.
The Maine Constitution is very direct and clear that powers and responsibilities delegated to the Legislator, Governor, and Judicial Branch cannot be under any circumstances sub-delegated.
Whereas, LD 522 clearly does in fact sub delegated the responsibilities and power of oversight regarding Guardian Ad Litem’s to a private and non-government entity; being the Board of Overseers of the Maine Bar.
Therefore, as a member of this judicial committee, you have a responsibility and must reject LD522 and if it should be move forward to the State House and Senate floor; could be a possible act in clear violation of the Maine Constitution. If for some reason, should LD522 be forward to the House and Senate floor; it must contain a proper disclosure that it may be in violation of the Maine Constitution.
I personally find it very troubling that some committee members whom should have a commanding knowledge of the Maine Constitution; would even consider supporting LD 522. Moreover, what is even more troubling is that LD522, was recommended by the Judicial Branch, which should have clearly known that these government powers and responsibilities cannot be sub-delegated to the board of overseers of the Maine Bar!
Another major U.S. Constitutional issue is the sub-delegation of powers in granting immunity or quasi - immunity to attorneys, or guardian ad litems that only represent individuals or a small group of individuals of the general public is prohibited; compare to attorneys that represents the vast majority of the general public with Constitutional rights which is acceptable. Therefore, LD 522 granting guardian ad litem quasi – immunity is in clear conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court opinion’s which have made it very clear as whom can be granted immunity and quasi-immunity. Therefore those attorneys, or guardian ad litems which only represent a child, or small group of children in a particular family will not qualify for any type of immunity, or quasi - immunity.
In closing, this committee should not recommend or allow LD522 to continue on to the floor of the Maine House, or Senate; due to what appears to be major Constitutional violations and conflicts.
Respectfully submitted by,
R Baizley
If you have an interest in bringing about Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
April 10, 2013
Maine Judicial Committee
100 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333
Dear Judicial Committee Member,
Please find within a friendly reminder regarding LD 522; upon accepting your State of Maine Government position, you took an oath and made a pledge to up hold both the Maine and United States Constitutions.
The Maine Constitution is very direct and clear that powers and responsibilities delegated to the Legislator, Governor, and Judicial Branch cannot be under any circumstances sub-delegated.
Whereas, LD 522 clearly does in fact sub delegated the responsibilities and power of oversight regarding Guardian Ad Litem’s to a private and non-government entity; being the Board of Overseers of the Maine Bar.
Therefore, as a member of this judicial committee, you have a responsibility and must reject LD522 and if it should be move forward to the State House and Senate floor; could be a possible act in clear violation of the Maine Constitution. If for some reason, should LD522 be forward to the House and Senate floor; it must contain a proper disclosure that it may be in violation of the Maine Constitution.
I personally find it very troubling that some committee members whom should have a commanding knowledge of the Maine Constitution; would even consider supporting LD 522. Moreover, what is even more troubling is that LD522, was recommended by the Judicial Branch, which should have clearly known that these government powers and responsibilities cannot be sub-delegated to the board of overseers of the Maine Bar!
Another major U.S. Constitutional issue is the sub-delegation of powers in granting immunity or quasi - immunity to attorneys, or guardian ad litems that only represent individuals or a small group of individuals of the general public is prohibited; compare to attorneys that represents the vast majority of the general public with Constitutional rights which is acceptable. Therefore, LD 522 granting guardian ad litem quasi – immunity is in clear conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court opinion’s which have made it very clear as whom can be granted immunity and quasi-immunity. Therefore those attorneys, or guardian ad litems which only represent a child, or small group of children in a particular family will not qualify for any type of immunity, or quasi - immunity.
In closing, this committee should not recommend or allow LD522 to continue on to the floor of the Maine House, or Senate; due to what appears to be major Constitutional violations and conflicts.
Respectfully submitted by,
R Baizley
If you have an interest in bringing about Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)