Thursday, March 9, 2017

Form 4473 - and the "Felon" label

People in states that allow either recreational or medical marijuana use are going to face big problems from the new form 4473, which apparently makes it a crime to purchase a gun if you use marijuana. If marijuana users aren't allowed to purchase guns, does that mean law enforcement could take a gun or guns away from someone if they know that individual uses marijuana? Here's a link to a Portland Press story about the new form 4473.

Law-abiding citizens who turn in their guns, or don't purchase them because of this new question on the form 4473, will be helpless against the real criminals. Anyone can get a gun, whether it be through a friend, or through a failed background check as shown below. Pete had been labeled a felon, due to a conviction in 1981, but was still approved in 2003 to purchase a gun.



He also purchased guns at K-Mart, Joe Jones, and other dealers. The "felon" label never goes away in Maine, unless you apply for a pardon and it's granted. The state arbitrarily preys upon those who, though they may have made mistakes in the past, might have changed over the years. 

The state allowed my husband to purchase guns through licensed dealers, then took them away claiming he didn't have the right to possess them. In 2013, against my wishes, Pete took a plea bargain and spent a week in jail, lost all our family's guns, and had to pay a fine. 


Thursday, March 2, 2017

Double Jeopardy...or worse.

Maine Game Wardens should never have seized our family's guns just because of Pete's decades old conviction in 1981 when he was 18 or 19 years old. That's like double jeopardy (prosecution twice for the same offense), only you don't get tried the second time...only convicted.

I asked for Intervenor status, as well as for there to be a hearing (called a Frank's hearing) to challenge the search warrant after the wardens, assisted by other law enforcement, came to our home and confiscated all of my family's guns in April of 2011. Most of the guns, probably all of them, were purchased during our marriage and are marital property.

So, a hearing was scheduled in 2013, but I was never notified of the hearing date by the court, apparently because I wasn't granted intervenor status. And though Pete and his attorney were notified, since Pete wanted to get things over with, he never told me. And neither he or his court-appointed attorney went to the hearing, so my motion was dismissed.

Pete ended up agreeing to a plea bargain for the supposed crime of being a felon in possession of firearms. He spent a week in jail, probably has another felon on his record, lost his guns to the state, has to pay a fine, and can't hunt with a gun, nor have one in our home for our protection. Oh, I can have one if I don't allow him possession of it apparently...come on.

The new form 4473 has a question on it, 11.e., which asks the applicant about marijuana use. Despite that your state may have legalized it for recreational use, or even if you have been prescribed marijuana for medical use, you will not be able to legally purchase a gun if you use marijuana.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. vs. Harford Glass Co.

I previously blogged about an employer who lied to the Maine Department of Labor, telling them that I had quit. I didn't quit, and I continue to try to get the Maine Department of Labor to reverse the decision denying me unemployment benefits.

The Unemployment Commission on January 31, 2017, affirmed the decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings, which had affirmed the decision of the Bureau of Labor...or whatever. They're all birds of a feather, and they flock together. By now I know the chances of getting justice if you are just an average Joe are pretty slim, I've asked for a reconsideration anyway.

I have 6 months from the date of the alleged violations of employment law, to file a complaint with the EEOC. That deadline will come around the end of March. But anyway, there is no deadline to get a decision reversed when someone commits fraud. Here's a Wikipedia article about the Supreme Court case that affirmed that.

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Look a likes - Gorsuch and Stewart II

I don't know if I can handle Gorsuch being on the Supreme Court of the United States. He looks too much like Judge Hal Stewart II.
Neil Gorsuch










Judge Hal Stewart II

Saturday, February 4, 2017

Lawyers Reprimanded

I was away from home, working at blueberry harvest for the first time. I was working for Wyman's of Maine in their factory in Cherryfield when I first read the story while on break in the cafeteria. The August 6, 2015 story in the Ellsworth American is titled "Two area lawyers reprimanded", written by Stephen Rappaport. While I've provided a link to the newspaper's website, I can't find the story online. I did save the newspaper clipping, so I'll quote from it about the second attorney mentioned:
In a second order also issued July 20, Ellsworth attorney Steven A. Juskewitch was similarly sanctioned for his "repetitive improper conduct and inappropriate action" for communicating with a woman who was not his client, and who had no lawyer, in an effort to obtain her signature "on documents that would ultimately benefit his client..."
Huh, an attorney was reprimanded for doing what Judge Hunter had done to Pete: got his signature on a form from the District Attorney when Pete didn't have an attorney's help. Hunter decided to imprison me when I called out to Pete "don't sign". That morning I had asked the clerk for a form and filled it out with Pete; he hate's paperwork you know. The form was a request for an attorney, at the state's expense. This was regarding the Maine Game Wardens invasion of our home and taking of our family's guns under the guise of public safety, and Pete's decades-old "felon" label. 

So, yes, Judge Hunter had the bailiff take me in handcuffs to the law library of the Superior Court in Caribou. It was only for an hour or two, until he got Pete to sign what the Assistant District Attorney, April Hare had placed before him. You can find the story using key words like, Hunter, and Hare in the search bar. Those names would be perfect for a fiction story... I wish this was one. I made a complaint regarding Judge Hunter, but the Committee for Judicial Responsibility and Disability dismissed it of course. 

And here's what the the other attorney was reprimanded or sanctioned for, by the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar. The Ellsworth American story doesn't say what punishment the lawyers received, what the sanctions were. 

In a Stipulated Report of Findings and Order dated July 20, Hancock County Assistant District Attorney William B. Entwisle of Sedgwick was sanctioned for "for improper actions and lack of appropriate professional judgment" arising from his failure to turn over discovery materials to the defendants or their lawyers in two separate criminal cases he was prosecuting.






Hungry for Justice - Panel finds no bias in MHRC?

Here's a link to a post I made in October of 2011 after being fired from my waitressing job at the Long Lake Sporting Club.

So, I filed a complaint with The Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) regarding the Martin's. Soon, the MHRC gagged me. That is, they made me sign a statement agreeing not to discuss (or write about) the case while they performed their so-called preliminary investigation. Sounds to me like a violation of the 1st Amendment right to free speech...by a Commission that's supposed to protect human rights? 

Regardless, I refrained from blogging about what the owners of this small town, family-owned restaurant in Sinclair Maine had done. It took two years for the MHRC to complete it's investigation; and they found there was NRG - that is No Reasonable Grounds to believe that discrimination occurred. 

Last fall the governor ordered an investigation of the Commission, worried that the Commission was biased against employers! And guess what? Well, read about it here. The story's title, LePage’s probe of human rights panel finds no bias against businesses, leaves no doubt in ones mind of what the outcome was. Any reasonable person would have found that the Commission is biased... against employees! How else can you explain this, from the story? 
The report found that in 2014, only 5 percent of the cases filed with the commission resulted in the commission finding reasonable grounds that there was a violation.
You can see for yourself from the pdf's of the meeting minutes at the Commission's website. The MHRC didn't take Michael Aftkin's case, and he ended up winning a lawsuit against his employer. 

Or you can believe the MHRC. They posted about the findings of the investigation at their website, under news or archives, titled "News flash: MHRC is not biased!" And can you guess what they feel is needed in order to advance the MHRC's good work? You'll find the answers at the law firm PretiFlaherty's website in a post titled "Governor's Panel supports Maine Human Rights Commission" at 13. Increase the MHRC’s budget.