Last month I sent a letter to the Maine Commission for Public Defense Services; it was a request for a new attorney. It was received on March 5, 2026...picked up at 8:40 a.m., 9589071052702739723660; and a copy sent to the Attorney General of Maine was picked up at the same time, 9589071052702739723677.
After a Maine jury convicted me of stalking, another lawyer was appointed to me; however, only for the sentencing. I haven't had a fair trial. In just a few hours, the jury could not possibly have understood the Maine statues regarding stalking and the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court case Counterman v. Colorado. Below is a statement taken from an abstract of the case in an Idaho Law Review:
The holding creates a new, additional burden on the movant to prove intent, where before, the majority of state and circuit courts only required an objective, reasonable person standard to prove intent in true threat cases
I would like the jury to explain how they arrived at a conclusion of guilt when there was nothing threatening about my social media posts. And I didn't send them to her...she went looking for the posts. The one meetup we had happened in the presence of law enforcement who would have arrested me if I did something wrong. The Counterman decision should have helped my defense!
Prior to the trial by jury I told my lawyer that the state's witness had not only misused the protection order against me, but against another individual who I intended to have testify. It's not fair that I was not allowed to present evidence of her pattern of abuse.