Charges in Lincoln County - 2nd malicious prosecution against me

These are the charges that led to my 5 arrests. I cannot mention my accuser/abuser's name as that could result in a 6th arrest, though it's in violation of my right of free speech and would be another wrongful arrest. Judge John Martin has placed conditions on me which are in violation of my first amendment right of free speech. Speech that doesn't harm is protected speech.  

 

Failure to Appear (FTA) and how your state treats it

Here'a a good article at Prison Policy Initiative regarding failure to appear (FTA) and there's a link to a chart where you can find how your state treats it.

Nearly every jurisdiction permits additional charges to be brought against someone who misses court, including the imposition of fines and imprisonment, with the exception of two states: Illinois and Mississippi. Four states — Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, and South Dakota — treat failure to appear as a strict liability offense, meaning no evidence of intent is required to hold defendants criminally responsible for nonappearance.

Of course, Maine, at the bottom. Cash bail is supposed to be an incentive for you to show up, or they get to keep the money put up. It's also another way to extract money from the innocent who've been wrongly arrested. 

Maine Commission for Public Defense Services (MCPDS) letter

I asked my court-appointed attorney for the letter that I heard the executive director of the MCPDS sent to the 8 district attorneys in Maine, and Attorney General Frey. He sent me a PDF and I tried to link it here, but it came up as blocked; in the address line was about:blank#blocked. 

I printed out the letter, and photographed it. I'm hoping that when I change the ink cartridge, the smear will disappear.  

If you are being maliciously prosecuted, send this to the DA to remind her/him they work for the people of Maine, not the person who signs their paycheck. 

Sworn statement signed months after arrest in Disorderly Conduct case

I was arrested on July 10, 2024. The officer signed the sworn statement months later, on February 10, 2025. The officer lied; I didn't use fireworks, plus they aren't illegal.   

Corporal Ted Martin failed to make a report or even issue a warning to the man who threatened me by text on June 6, 2024 after lying about being shot! He locked Pete and I out on July 8, 2024 and yelled violently at his brother and I on July 10, 2024. Officer Martin responded to both calls...and I was arrested for a slight argument with Pete on July 10, 2024. I've made a complaint to Officer Christopher Tupper, but absolutely nothing is being done to investigate Martin. 

The case has since been dismissed, because the DA felt that I'd been punished enough (four nights) for failing to appear to pick a jury after I was denied an attorney. The officer, district attorney, and judge are all guilty of violating my right to due process and maliciously prosecuting me. 

Case # AROCD 2024-20209 

District Attorney: Todd Collins  

https://aroostook.me.us/appointed-elected/district-attorney/

Arresting officer: Maine State Corporal Ted Martin, Troop F

https://www.maine.gov/dps/msp/about/find-local-troop/troop-f

Presiding Judge: Stephen Nelson Superior Court Aroostook County, Maine

https://www.courts.maine.gov/courts/superior/aroostook-caribou-sc.html

 

1982, 11 th circuit court case - jury instruction, resisting arrest

I found the following case brief at Study Buddy. There are several issues involved in this incident in 1980 when members of the Coast Guard boarded a boat. This 1982 case was on appeal in the 11th circuit court.

United States v. Danehy

Citation: 680 F.2d 1311 (11th Cir. 1982)

Facts

The defendant was accused of trying to ram a Coast Guard boat with his fishing boat and then resisting Coast Guard officers who boarded his boat and arrested him. The defendant testified at trial and denied these allegations. The defendant attempted to introduce evidence of his reputation for truthfulness. The district court excluded this evidence. The defendant claimed that this was an abuse of discretion.

Thomas Danehy and people aboard his 28 foot boat had different accounts of what happened than what those on the Coast Guard boat did. I posted about this case earlier today on Facebook; and here's the link to the whole case, at Justia. And below are some of the highlights from the case: 

The appellant claims the trial court made three reversible errors. We turn to the first of these, the contention that the district court should have allowed Danehy to call three witnesses to testify to his reputation of truthfulness.

Daney did not win on this issue. The court said that was "plain error," not abuse of discretion and I guess didn't carry enough weight to get the conviction thrown out.

In Wiscasset District Court this spring, the judge did the same thing to me, wouldn't let my one character witnesses speak, or let me enter the letters of reference I had from two other individuals. I disagree with Judge John Martin, but my opinion or yours doesn't matter. A judge can always justify his decision; and if he can't, you or anyone else will be hard-pressed to hold him accountable for violating your rights.  

Danehy's second contention is that the trial court gave an improper jury instruction on whether it was necessary that Danehy know it was federal officers he was resisting. Tied in with this is Danehy's claim that he was improperly denied an instruction to the jury on the subject of resisting an unlawful arrest. 

We hold that the trial judge was in error when he gave this instruction. This instruction is contrary to United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 679, 95 S. Ct. 1255, 1261, 43 L. Ed. 2d 541 (1975); United States v. Ochoa, 526 F.2d 1278, 1281 (5th Cir. 1976); and United States v. Young, 464 F.2d 160, 163 (5th Cir. 1972). Young states that a defendant may not be held absolutely liable for assaulting a government officer when the defendant acts from a mistaken belief that he himself is threatened with an intentional tort by a private citizen. Ochoa goes further and states that even deadly force, in the proper circumstances, could be employed by the defendant if he could reasonably believe that the intruders were a threat to his person. The Supreme Court in Feola stated that "the situation is not one where legitimate conduct becomes unlawful solely because of the identity of the individual or agency affected." 420 U.S. at 685, 95 S. Ct. at 1264.

Sounding good so far. I didn't see anything mentioned by the judge though regarding that an officer acts under color of law if he is without proper authority, and can be sued under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Danehy's conviction was reversed; but not because of any admission of wrongful arrest. It was because of the failure of the judge to tell the jury about the 4th element to prove someone is resisting arrest, which is doing it knowingly.

We conclude that under the circumstances of this case, Danehy had no right to forcibly resist the Coast Guard arrest, even on the unlikely supposition that the arrest was unlawful.

What? What was the majority’s reasoning? I'm not sure the final outcome for Thomas Danehy. I'm still reading the case and writing about it. So even when the warrant is based on bad information, you could be charged and convicted if you resist. I wouldn't do it anyway - except in certain situations such as I did find myself in on March 30 and October 8 of 2025. Yes, I resisted, but did it from behind a locked door, which they then breeched; and I'm trying to get the help of a civil rights attorney for the violations of my 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments.

It's usually not smart to forcibly resist...they will always outpower you. When they make a decision to arrest you, whether or not they have probable cause, I believe law enforcement rarely change their mind; they rarely question a judge's warrant. I see the majority in the case based their decision on old case law, saying it was no longer relevant.

Speaking for the court in United States v. Johnson, 542 F.2d 230, 233 (5th Cir. 1976), Judge Morgan evaluated the current vitality of the common law right to forcibly resist unlawful arrest. He concluded that old Fifth Circuit case law on the subject had been "sapped of its precedential value" by the persuasive authority of decisions from the other courts of appeals. Those decisions recognize that the common law right to resist an arrest that is not based upon probable cause, suited though it may have been to a past era, has no significant role to play in our own society where ready access to the courts is available to redress such police misconduct. 

Huh? IT IS NOT! It's so difficult to get those who work in the justice system, which includes law enforcement, held accountable for misconduct, and more! There's much video footage on the television news and on the Internet of police arresting people without good reason. Some of the victims are the deaf, the blind, the disabled, the homeless, immigrants, the poor, victims of domestic violence, and people with mental health issues...isn't that just about everyone! One state, Alabama, passed a law, Cade Noah Act (2024) mandating training to deal with such vulnerable populations.

Okay, one judge, Clark, dissenting, said:

The majority reasoning is that a citizen, if unlawfully arrested, should go along to the police station, make bond (the majority assume he can) and later sue the policeman for the tort of unlawful arrest. The citizen is not justified in using even passive force to resist.