Roy v Turcotte Notice of Appeal Full Package Sept 22 2014

8/11/2019 Roy v Turcotte Notice of Appeal Full Package Sept 22 2014

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/roy-v-turcotte-notice-of-appeal-full-package-sept-22-2014 1/22

SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT COURT

KENNEBEC

,

ss, .· . ~ ~ ; _ ; _ f ; \ ' E D MI FILED

Location

_________

Docket No. _A_P _14_ s_e -

n, l:.:;c.C SUPER10H COURT

Docket No.

_

_R_EG_R_o_Y

________

;_:ZG_:_:_Iq

SEP 22

A <q: 02

NOTICE OF

APPEAL

_:_·IN_A_T_UR_c_o_n_E

\:;f i_ri::

_ ; _ ~ L E L UH 8 E T 6

g ~ i n a l

~ t K i \ OF

COURTS

I, GINA TURCOTIE (name

of

party appealing), appeal from the judgment, order

or ruling entered in this proceeding on SEPTEMBER

18,2014

(date of order appealed from).

0

f

this is a civil appeal, the Statement of the Issues (reasons for appeal) are

(as-:fu.U@w-s)

(attached)

pursuant to M.R. App. P. 5 (b)(2)(A).

SEE ATIACHED STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ON

APPEAL

D This case arises from the Maine Tort Claims Act requiring the clerk to send a copy of this

Notice

of

Appeal to the Office

of

the Attorney General.

D

f

this is a criminal appeal, check one

of

the following:

D

The defendant is presently confined

a t

0

The defendant is not in custody. The defendant s address is

CHECK APPLICABLE

BOX:

D

The Transcript Order form is attached.

Ill

No transcript will

be

ordered.

D

No electronic or other recording of the proceedings can be prepared for this civil case.

Therefore, a statement in lieu of transcript will be ? ' p ~ d pursuant to M.R.App .P. 5 (d).

Date:

SEPTEMBER 22,

2014

~ f < 4 ~ C 4 2 { ; { 1 :

Signature

of

Appellant or Appellant s Attorney

Address of Appellant or Attorney:

GINA

TURCOTIE

GINA

TURCOTIE

32 COURT

STREET

APT 1

Printed name of Appellant or Appellant s Attorney

· AUGUSTA

MAINE

If attorney, bar number:

_N_IA________

THIS

NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED

IN

THE COURT THAT ISSUED THE

ORDER APPEALED FROM.

IT WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED OR DOCKETED UNLESS

(1) IN

A CIVIL

CASE.

IT

IS

ACCOMPANIED

BY

THE REQUIRED FILING FEE OR A

MOTION

TO

WAIVE THE

FILING

FEE,

AND

2) IF THE APPELLANT IS

REPRESENTED, IT CONTAINS THE

BAR

NUMBER OF APPELLANT S ATTORNEY.

NOTICE: If this

is

an appeal from

a civil case

or

a

criminal

case involving

an adult

defendant,

this notice must be filed within 21 days of the entry of the judgment

in

the docket.

f

this is

an appeal from

a case involving

the extradition of

a fugitive

to another

state,

this

notice must

be

filed

within

7

days of

the

entry of

the

judgment

in the docket.

Warning: Small Claims, Forcible Entry Detainer and Juvenile

matters have differing

time

limits

for

filing a Notice of Appeal.

f this

i,s

an

appeal from a

Small

Claims, Forcible

Entry and

Detainer or Juvenile matter,

another

form

must be used

which

is available

from

the clerk.

CV/CR 162, Rev. 08/09

Page 1 ofl



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT of ISSUES

on APPEAL to the LAW COURT

STATE OF MAINE


KENNEBEC, ss LOCATION: AUGUSTA

DOCKET: AP-14-56 DOCKET: SA-14-453

GREG ROY *

PLAINTIFF *

v *

GINA TURCOTTE *

DEFENDANT *

Defendant, GINA TURCOTTE, attaches Defendant’s Statement of Issues on

Appeal to the Law Court to her Notice of Appeal dated September 22, 2014. This statement of issues is for initial guidance in developing the record and does

not preclude Defendant from raising other properly preserved issues on appeal.

The following are questions of the issues the Defendant intends to present on

appeal pursuant to MRAppP 5(b)(2)(A).

1.

Do tenancies-at-will violate Constitution of the State of Maine Article 1, Section

1: “acquiring, possessing and protecting property” and Sec. 11 “law impairing the

obligation of contracts” ?

2.

Do tenants have a right to demand a “tenancy-for-a-term” of 6 months or longer?

3.

Do tenancies-at-will constitute unconscionable contracts for landlords’ benefit?

4.

Do tenants have a right to trial by jury de novo in Superior Court to determine

genuine issues of material fact regarding fraudulent rental leases?

5.

Do District Court judges have authority to preside over civil claims of fraud when

alleged during forcible entry and detainer actions?

6.

Does 14 MRSA §6008 violate tenants’ rights under the Constitution of the State

of Maine Article 1, Section 6-A: “nor be denied the equal protection of the laws” ?

7.

Do parties have a right to subpoena pre-trial discovery of admissible evidence

prior to District Court forcible entry and detainer trials?

8.

Do parties have a right to thoroughly examine any admissible evidence intended

to be entered into the record by the other party?



9. Do Maine Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 80D violate Constitution of the State of

9

Maine Article 1 Section 6-A: no person sh ll be

deprived

of life, liberty or

property

without due

process

of law)),

nor

be denied the equ l

protection

of

the

laws , inter alia?

10 . Do District

and

Superior Court

judges

and justices have lawful authority

to

decide

the constitutionality

of

state

laws

statutes

codes

rules

and

procedures?

DATED: September 22 2014

GINA TURCOTTE

32 COURT STREET APT 1

AUGUSTA MAINE

CERTIFIC TE

O

SERVICE

GINA TURCOTTE certifies that a copy of

the

foregoing

document

has been served

by

first class postal

mail

on this day upon GREGORY ROY at 389 Costello

Road

Gardiner

Maine.

7

7

DATED: September 22 2014

GINA TURCOTTE



STATE OF MAINE

_G_R_E_G_R_O_Y cPlaintiff

v.

D I S T R I C T ~ T 1 . _

Location k ~ 1

Gil

Docket No. -

4 q5

NOTICE OF APPEAL

and

AFFIDAVIT

Forcible Entry and Detainer

14 M.R.S. § 6008

G=- - -1

= A ~ T = U , _ , _ R ' C - - ' O ~ T _ , _ T - ' E = - - - - - - - · D e f e n d a n t

1.

I, GINA TURCOTTE

this proceeding dated AUGUST

20, 2014

, appeal from the judgment, order or u l i ~ g entered in

2.

Check all boxes that apply:

~ I appeal to the Superior Cour t on the following questions of law:

SEE ATTACHED ADDITIONAL PAGES

attach additional pages as needed)

I appeal to the Superior Court for a jury trial de novo.

The specific facts that show that there is a genuine issue regarding a right to trial

by

jury are:

SEE ATTACHED

ADDITIONAL PAGES

,-- attach additional pages as needed)

IF YOU ARE THE DEFENDANT, YOU

MUST

PAY YOUR

CURRENT

MONTH S RENT

OR THE

RENT ARREARAGE,

WHICHEVER

IS LESS, BEFORE FILING THIS APPEAL. 14 M.R.S. § 6008(2)

3. Check the box

that

applies:

K I have paid to the Pla inti ff any unpaid portion of the current month s rent or the rent arrearage; or

0

I have paid the District Court any unpaid portion

of

the current month s rent or rent arrearage, because

there is a dispute about the rent; or

0

Not applicable, I am the Plaintiff.

4.

Check the box

that

applies:

TRANSCRIPT

HAS BEEN

PREVIOUSLY ORDERED.

0

The Transcript Order form is attached.

0

No transcript will be ordered.

0 No electronic or other recording of the proceedings can be prepared for this case. Therefore, a statement

in lieu oftraru;cript will be prepared pursuant to M.R. Civ.

P.

76F(c) . J2 -_

Date: SEPT 22 2014 Signature: ~ ~

Printe<;l nan::e:

GINA TURCOTTE

Address: 32 COURT ST APT 1

AUGUSTA MAINE

Personally appeared the above named _IN_A_T_U_R_c_o_TT_E

and signed

and

made oath to the truth of the statements in the above affidavit, and att

before me.

Date:

SEPT 22 2014

otary

Public/Atto?

at Law /

h/ -c : 2 ~ 5 ~

THIS MUST BE FILED IN

THE

COURT WHERE THE ORDER WAS ISSUED. YOU MUST PAY

THE FILING

FEE

OR FILE AN APPLICATION

TO

PROCEED

WITHOUT

PAYMENT

OF

FEES

AT THE SAME TIME YOU FILE THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL.

NOTICE: This notice

must

be filed within 30 days

of

the

entry of judgment in the

docket

or

before the

issuance of the writ of possession, whichever occurs first.

CV-206, Rev. 04/14 Page 1

of

1



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

NOTICE OF APPEAL AND AFFIDAVIT ADDITIONAL PAGES Page 1 of 3

NOTICE OF APPEAL AND AFFIDAVITFORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER

ADDITIONAL PAGES

STATE OF MAINE




GREG ROY *

PLAINTIFF *

v *

GINA TURCOTTE *

DEFENDANT *

1.

I, GINA TURCOTTE, appeal from the Forcible Entry and Detainer judgment entered

in this proceeding dated AUGUST 20, 2014 in District Court on both questions of law and fact to be determined by a jury as guaranteed by Constitution of the

State of Maine Article 1, Section 4 which states, “the jury, after receiving the

direction of the court, shall have a right to determine, at their discretion, the law and

the fact” .

2.

First, in order to establish all relevant true facts for future appeals of constitutional

law , I appeal to the Superior Court for a trial by jury de novo. The specific facts that

show there are genuine issues of material fact to which I have a right to trial by jury

de novo are listed below and incorporated from Defendant’s attached Affidavit of

Prejudice and shall be considered part of this notice as if fully set forth herein:

a.

Landlord breached the rental contract and violated his ongoing common law

legal duty to disclose all elements of a rental contract that would impair or alter

either party’s performance, use or enjoyment of the property;

b.

Landlord has failed to perform his legal duty under the federal Fair Housing

Act, 42 U.S.C. §§3601 et seq. (1999) to continuously offer and provide

reasonable accommodations for Defendant’s known and documented special

medical housing needs as a disabled homeless woman of which Landlord was

entirely informed prior to signing the rental contract;

c.

Landlord knowingly and intentionally discriminated against tenant because of

her homelessness and medical disability status by recklessly, knowingly and

maliciously omitting pertinent material facts from the unconstitutional and



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

NOTICE OF APPEAL AND AFFIDAVIT ADDITIONAL PAGES Page 2 of 3

unconscionable ‘at will’ rental contract which was offered with the intent to

defraud tenant and which in fact directly impacted tenant’s decision to enter

the contract and legal use and enjoyment of the property,

d.

Landlord intentionally and repeatedly retaliated by maliciously breaching

Clause #9 of the rental contract with daily loud construction work,

e.

Landlord intentionally retaliated by having tenant’s guest’s automobile towed

on August 13, 2014 from the tenant’s assigned private parking space;

f.

Landlord knowingly locked tenant’s medical therapy device (cat) and other

personal property in the basement on August 13, 2014 without permission or

authority and without giving tenant any access with intent to deprive tenant of

her personal property provoking immediate police intervention;

g.

Landlord retaliated against Defendant for being associated with a tenants

association, namely MAINE TENANTS JUSTICE LEAGUE, by bringing this frivolous action under 30-day notice to quit without citing any rental arrearages

under 14 MRSA §6002 effectually barring most of tenant’s legal defenses,

possessory rights and remedies,

h. Landlord constructively evicted tenant by breaching the covenant of quiet

enjoyment during tenant’s weekly religious worship violating her freedom of

religion, speech and assembly,

i.

Landlord commenced a retaliatory eviction with full awareness that tenant’s

medical disability and special housing needs make finding suitable housing

extremely difficult , which include:

i.

easy walking to local essential community services,

ii.

provisions for indoor/outdoor emotional therapeutic animals (cats),

iii.

safe and uninterrupted provisions for uninhibited possession, use and

cultivation of legally recommended and documented medical cannabis

products, devices and equipment.

There is an ominously high probability Defendant will be physically homeless

and living on the street during winter months if a writ of possession is issued.



I AFFIRM THERE IS NO UNPAID PORTION OF

ANY

PAST, CURRENT, OR FUTURE RENT

· PURSUANT TO

14

MRSA 6008(2) BECAUSE ALL RENT

HAS

BEEN DISCHARGED

UNDER 11 MRSA §2-1407, ... a lessee, on notifying the

lessor

ofthe lessee s intention to

do so, may

deduct

all or any

part of

the

damages

resulting from any default

under

the

lease

contract from

any

part

of

the

rent

still

due under

the

same

lease

contract.

[See Sept. 3 2014 Exhibits A-D attached to Defendant s Affidavit in Support

of

Motion for

Stay

of

Writ

of

Possession for Full Time ofAppeal]

3. I have

unrebutted credit

for work

performed

for

Plaintiff of

4727

payable

in

rent;

4. I

assert no

future

rent

is accruing

by virtue of my invoking 49 Am Jur 2d Pt

2

Landlord and Tenant, §35 and §36, 11 MRSA §2-1407

and

serving a proper Notice

of

Fraud and

Nonpayment

of

Future

Rent

on

Plaintiff

on August

4

and

8,

2014

as

evidenced

within

this record.

5. 14 MRSA §6008(2) requiring payment of rent is inapplicable to this case.

6. The transc ript was ordered on August 21st

but not

yet

delivered

in written form.

DATED:

September

22, 2014

GINA TURCOTTE

32 COURT STREET APT 1 AUGUSTA

~ e r s o n l l y appeared

the

above named GINA TURC<?TTE

on this

day

who signed and

made oath

before me

to

the truth of

the

statements

in

the foregoing attached pages.

DATED:

September

22, 2014

~ ; Y J ~

clerk /Notary

Public/Attorney at Law

£...t? .P.

< l · t ? S : O J I ~

NOTICE OF APPEAL AND AFFIDAVIT ADDITIONAL

PAGES

Page

3

of

3



STATE OF MAINE

SUPERIOR COURT

· KENNBEC, ss

DOCKETNO:

GREG ROY

PLAINTIFF

v

GINA TURCOTTE

DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT S

AFFIDAVIT

IN COMPLIANCE WITH

14 MRSA §6008(6)

NOW COMES DEFENDANT, GINA TURCOTTE, upon her own knowledge,

information and

belief,

and so

far as

upon her information and

belief,

she believes this

information

to

be

true

and

correct,

submits this

Affidavit

In

Compliance with

14

MRSA

§6008 6) affirming

that

she

has

complied with

the requirements of

subsection 2

regarding

the

payment of rent.

DATED: September 22,

2014

GINA TURCOTTE

KENNEBEC, SS.

Personally appeared on this day the above-named

GINA TURCOTTE and

made

oath that

she

has read the foregoing,

knows the

contents thereof and that

the same are

.

true

to the

best of

her knowledge, information

and

belief.

~ / ; J ~

Notary Public ~ 7 0

·

?f--0 5-;;zo;:;)-/

DATED: September 22, 2014

Before me:

CERTIFIC TE OF SERVICE

GINA TURCOTTE certifies

that

a copy of

the

foregoing document has been served

by

first class postal

mail on

this day upon

GREGORY ROY

at 389

Costello Road

._k k c£ttU

Gardiner Maine.

DATED:

September

22,

2014

GINA TURCOTTE

Page 1

of

1



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

DEFENDANT’S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS

with INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

STATE OF MAINE




GREG ROY *

PLAINTIFF *

v *

GINA TURCOTTE *

DEFENDANT *

Defendant, GINA TURCOTTE, submits Defendant’s Written Objections with

Incorporated Memorandum of Law in support of Defendant’s formal objections at trial. This list of written objections supplements Defendant’s objections raised during

trial with supporting laws and rules which were not immediately known at trial.

1. Object to Judge Requiring Legal Precision from Unrepresented Defendant

a.

When Judge Stanfill and Justice Mullen both indicated Defendant will be

held to same high standards as licensed BAR attorneys they discriminated

against Defendant for not being an attorney violating Section 3 of Maine

constitution “no subordination nor preference of any one sect or denomination

to another shall ever be established by law” and subsequently violated my

right to equal protection under Section 6-A.

b.

Defendant’s paperwork is legally correct, clear, precise and on point citing

relevant facts, evidence, law and procedure but the court continues to deny

Defendant’s many valid constitutional claims.

2.

Object to Jurisdiction: 28 USC §455(b)(4) “[Judge Valerie Stanfill] knows that

she, individually or as a fiduciary, … has a financial interest in the subject matter

in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be

substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;”

a.

Judge Valerie Stanfill was properly disqualified and recused for having a

deep personal bias and prejudice by virtue of her paid participation in



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

administrative court activities and access to an ‘extrajudicial source’ of

information regarding future physical location of the court adjacent to the

subject property which causes a significant bias against Defendant.

3. Object to Failure to Receive Discovery of Admissible Evidence: MRCivP 26

a.

Defendant was not provided any opportunity to receive copies of nor

thoroughly examine the admissible evidence for fraud, mistakes, or

misrepresentations of fact.

4. Object to Exhibit 1, Rental Lease: MREvid 403. Exclusion Of Relevant

Evidence On Grounds Of Prejudice, Confusion, Or Waste Of Time

a.

Exhibit 1 has erroneous information which was introduced by Plaintiff to

prejudice, mislead or confuse the court

5. Object to Exhibit 2, Notice to Quit: RULE 403. Exclusion Of Relevant Evidence

On Grounds Of Prejudice, Confusion, Or Waste Of Time

a. Exhibit 2 has erroneous information which was introduced by Plaintiff to

prejudice, mislead or confuse the court.

6. Object to Prejudice Shown by Judge Against Unrepresented Defendant

Defendant entered proper affirmative defenses, objections and motions during

trial which Judge Stanfill denied because Defendant did not have direct memory

of pertinent caselaw, rules of evidence or rules of civil procedure.

Judge Stanfill’s prejudice against Defendant due to her of lack of legal knowledge

is a violation of Constitution of the State of Maine, Article 1, Section 6-A: “nor be

denied the equal protection of the laws”, “nor be denied the enjoyment of that

person’s civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof.”

a.

“The allegations of the complaint, especially a pro se complaint, must be read

in a liberal fashion” , Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30

L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Cruz v. Beto , 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d

263 (1972),

b.

“and they must be accepted as true in testing their sufficiency” , Haines v.

Kerner , supra, Cruz v. Beto , supra.



c.

A

prisoner s

prose

complaint (however inartfully

pleaded must

be

held

to

less stringent standards than

formal pleadings

drafted by lawyers and can

only be dismissed for failure to state a claim

if

it appears (beyond

doubt

that

the plaintiff

can prove

no

set of acts

in

support of his

claim which

would

entitle him to relief Estelle v. Gamble,

429

U.S. 97,

97 S.Ct.

285, 50 L.Ed.2d

251

1976).

See

Williams v. Rhoden,

629 F.2d

1099

5th

Cir.

1980);

Jackson

v Reese, 608

F.2d

159 5th Cir.

1979);

Slavin

v

Curry,

574 F.2d 1256 5th

Cir.

1978);

Cruz

v

Skelton, 543 F.2d

86

5th Cir.

1976), cert.

denied, 433

U.S. 911,97 S.Ct. 2980,53 L.Ed.2d 1096 1977). Covington v. Cole, 528

F.2d

1365 5th Cir.

1976);

See also, Finley

v

Staton, 542

F.2d

250,

5th

Cir.

1976);

Williams

v

McCall, 531 F.2d 1247 5th Cir.

1976);

Taylor

v

Gibson,

529

F.2d

709 5th Cir.

1976);

Go(fv. Jones,

500 F.

2d

395 5th Cir.

1974);

Reed

v

Jones,

483

F .

2d 77

5th

Cir.

1973);

and

Madison

v

Purdy,

410

F.2d

99

5th

Cir.

1969).

DATED:

September 22, 2014

.GINA

TURCOTTE

32

COURT

STREET,

APT 1

AUGUSTA, MAINE

CERTIFIC TE OF

SERVI E

GINA TURCOTTE certifies that a copy

of

the

foregoing

document has

been

served

.by first class postal mail on

this

day upon GREGORY ROY

at

389 Costello Road

Gardiner Maine.


GINA TURCOTTE



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL with INCORPORATED MEMO OF LAW

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL

with INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

STATE OF MAINE




GREG ROY *PLAINTIFF *

v *

GINA TURCOTTE *

DEFENDANT *

Defendant, GINA TURCOTTE, respectfully submits Defendant’s Motion for

Recusal with Incorporated Memorandum of Law and incorporates as if fully setforth herein Defendant’s Affidavit of Bias and Prejudice and Certificate of Counsel

of Record in good faith pursuant to 28 USC §144 and 28 USC §455 and all prior

affidavits, addendums, motions, memorandums of law, evidence, exhibits and any

other facts and paperwork of the record relevant to this recusal.

Defendant acknowledges this is truly a once-in-a-lifetime, highly unusual and

unique situation which provokes many valid constitutional questions requiring

legal precision and great judicial sensitivity.

The merits and outcome of this action are further complicated by Defendant’s

legal status as a member of a class of disabled individuals protected by Americans

with Disabilities Act and other appropriate laws, her documented special medical

housing needs and her proper requests for reasonable accommodations from both

Plaintiff and this court on September 12.

Defendant respectfully asserts all Maine judges and justices have deep

personal bias and prejudice in favor of Plaintiff obtaining a writ of possession in

this case against Defendant and all other tenants at 32 Court Street, Augusta, for

the reasons stated in Defendant’s Affidavit of Bias and Prejudice and other papers.

Defendant asserts that personal bias and prejudice also exists among judges

outside the county of Kennebec because Maine courts routinely rotate judges

through the state’s various courts, at both the district and superior court levels, to

relieve the burden of judges’ vacations, continuing education requirements, sudden



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33


illnesses, family duties, professional obligations, and training and education of new

judges creating a very high likelihood that every judge within Maine may at some

time personally preside over a case in the new Augusta courthouse.

The test to be applied in evaluating recusal and disqualification of judges was

clearly stated many years ago in Berger v United States (1921) 255 U.S. 22:

Does the Affidavit of Prejudice give fair support to the charge of a bent of

mind that may prevent or impede impartiality of judgment (225 U.S. at 33-34)?

In Bell v Chandler (10th Circuit, 1978) 569 F.2d 559, the Court observed that

28 USC §144 requires a judge who is the subject of a motion for recusal must cease

to act in the case after determining the legal sufficiency of the motion. The Court

pointed out that no direct relationship between the judge and the party or the caseis required under §144 in order to show bias. (569 F.2d at 569).

28 USC §144 states: Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court

makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the

matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of

any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge

shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or

prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the

term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure

to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It

shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in

good faith

28 USC §455(a) requires Any justice, judge, magistrate, or referee in

bankruptcy of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which

his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

28 USC §455(b)(1) requires “He shall also disqualify himself in the following

circumstances: where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or

personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding”

28 USC §455(b)(4) requires recusal if “He knows that he, individually or as a

fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33


interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any

other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding”

In United States v Antar , (3rd Circuit, 1995) 53 F.3d 568, the Court pointed

out that the relevant consideration requires that, if a "reasonable man, were he to

know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality "

under the applicable standard, then the judge must recuse. In re Larson, 43 F.3d410, 415 (8th Cir.1994) (quoting Potashnick v. Port City Constr. Co., 609 F.2d 1101,

1111 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 820, 101 S.Ct. 78, 66 L.Ed.2d 22 (1980)).

That Court also explained, “But in determining whether a judge had the duty

to disqualify him or herself, our focus must be on the reaction of the reasonable

observer. If there is an appearance of partiality, that ends the matter .” Haines v.

Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 98 (3d Cir.1992); Lewis v. Curtis , 671 F.2d 779,

789 (3d Cir.) ("Impartiality and the appearance of impartiality in a judicial officerare the sine qua non of the American legal system ."), cert. denied , 459 U.S. 880,

103 S.Ct. 176, 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982)”.

The Court also pointed out that the judge does not have to be subjectively

biased or prejudiced, so long as he appears to be so.

The Court held in Webbe v. McGhie Land Title Co., 549 F.2d 1358, 1361 (10th

Cir. 1977), that the "appearance of impartiality is virtually as important as the fact of

impartiality ."

Judge Stanfill’s and Justice Mullen’s conduct as described in the attached

documents and other facts as preserved in the record, combined with public

information that the Maine Judicial Branch, its judges and court employees in

Augusta will occupy a parking lot on Court Street which is planned to be built on

the land of the subject property demonstrating to a reasonable person that there is

grave doubt as to the impartiality of the judges and court employees in this case.

There can be no doubt that the judges and its employees are prejudiced in

this instant case against Defendant because if Defendant was successful on her

appeal and be allowed to legally occupy 32 Court Street, her physical occupation at

the property will significantly delay or permanently modify the preplanned parking

lot specifically chosen by the Maine Judicial Branch to occupy the Perham/Court

Street block after forcibly purchasing the land and removing the inhabitants on the

property, including Defendant and the building’s other tenants.



Defendant

renews her objection

to

any bench

trial

without a

jury of

her peers.

There can be no question that Defendant s

only

option

to receive

any kind of

fair, legal and constitutional

outcome is

through a tri l

y jury

de novo on questions

of l w nd

genuine

issues of m teri l

f ct

as

guaranteed

by the

Constitution

of

the

State

of

Maine, Article 1, Section 4 and Section 20 in Superior Court which she

twice

previously

demanded

in

her

first

and amended

Notices

of

Appeal.


~ ~ t u f f

GINA TURCOTTE

32 COURT

STREET, APT 1

AUGUSTA, MAINE

NOTICE OF MOTION

If you want to oppose

this motion,

you

must

file a

Memorandum in

Opposition in

accordance with MRCivP 7 c) with the Court Clerk s Office

within

twenty-one 21) days

. of the date of

the

filing of

this

Motion

unless another time is

provided by these rules or

set by

the court. f you fail to file a Memorandum in Opposition to this Motion within

twenty-one

21) days in accordance with the

rules, it

will be deemed a waiver of all

objections, and presumed that you do not

object

to the Motion and the Motion

may

be

granted

by

the

court

without a hearing

and

without further notice to

you.

CERTIFIC TE

O

SERVICE

GINA TURCOTTE

certifies

that

a copy of the foregoing document has

been

served by first

class postal mail on this

day

upon GREGORY

ROY

at

389 Costello

Road

Gardiner Maine.

DATED: September

22,

2014

GINA TURCOTTE

DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR RECUSAL

with

INCORPORATED MEMO OF L W



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

DEFENDANT'S AFFIDAVIT OF PREJUDICE SA-14-453/AP-14-56

DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT

of BIAS and PREJUDICE

STATE OF MAINE




GREG ROY *PLAINTIFF *

v *

GINA TURCOTTE *

DEFENDANT *

Defendant, GINA TURCOTTE, respectfully submits Defendant’s Affidavit of

Bias and Prejudice.Defendant swears under pains and penalties of perjury the statements made

herein are based upon her own personal knowledge, personal information and

belief which are based on her meticulous research of public government records

and newspaper archives as cited herein, and so far as upon her personal

information and belief, she believes this information to be true and correct.

Defendant acknowledges this is truly a once-in-a-lifetime, highly unusual and

unique situation which provokes many valid constitutional questions and which

requires precise legal attention with great judicial sensitivity.

The merits and outcome of this action are further complicated by Defendant’s

legal status as a member of a class of disabled individuals protected by Americans

with Disabilities Act and other appropriate laws, her documented special medical

housing needs and her proper requests for reasonable accommodations from both

Plaintiff and this court on September 12.

Defendant asserts that personal bias and prejudice also exists among judges

outside the county of Kennebec because Maine courts routinely rotate judges

through the state’s various courts, at both the district and superior court levels, to

relieve the burden of judges’ vacations, continuing education requirements, sudden

illnesses, family duties, professional obligations, and training and education of new

judges creating a very high likelihood that every judge within Maine may at some

time personally preside over a case in the new Augusta courthouse.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33


Defendant respectfully asserts all Maine judges and justices have deep

personal bias and prejudice in favor of Plaintiff obtaining a writ of possession

against Defendant and all other tenants at 32 Court Street, Augusta, for the

following reasons:

1.

The subject property is sitting on land targeted for a courthouse parkinglot.

2. On March 3, 2009, the Bangor Daily News published “Funding sought for

court projects” which states, “The favored concept for the Augusta

courthouse is to build an addition onto the back side of the existing county

courthouse, Glessner said…The project would involve the purchase of land

and closure of the street behind the courthouse, he said.”

3.

On July 9, 2012, the Kennebec Journal published “Courthouse expansionhas Tuesday hearing ” which states, “The consolidated courthouse was

proposed in October 2009 by Maine Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice

Leigh Saufley.”

4. On March 19, 2014, the Kennebec Journal published “Justice: New

Augusta courthouse to boost downtown” which stated “A supreme court

justice … is helping direct the construction of the new court complex in the

city…” and “The city and county lobbied successfully to build the new

complex behind the existing court building.”

5. On June 22, 2014 Kennebec Journal published “Talks continue on

Kennebec courthouse parking area” stating,

a. “With purchase options in hand for three of the properties,

negotiations continue with Gregory Roy, a real estate agent in

Brunswick who owns a multifamily building on the corner of Perham

at 32 Court Street.”

b.

“The city of Augusta is leading those discussions, according to City

Manager William Bridgeo.”

c. “James T. Glessner, state court administrator for the Maine Judicial

Branch, said he appreciated the city’s efforts in the negotiations.”

d. “It’s certainly a benefit to the project.” [James Glessner] said.”



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33


e. “…it was originally going to be…along Interstate 95 [but] the city [of

Augusta], the mayor [William Stokes], the county, particularly the

county, did not like that idea at all.”

f. “It’s the biggest construction project undertaken by the judicial

branch.”

6.

William Stokes was confirmed as a Superior Court justice on July 31,2014.

7. On July 27, 2014 the Bangor Daily News published an article, “$55 million

Capital Judicial Center to unite Augusta courts, judicial offices “ which

stated, “There will be…six courtrooms, nine chambers for judges including

two offices for supreme court justices…”

8. After no less than five years’ of planning, all Maine judges’ should

reasonably know they will be parking their personal automobiles on landof the subject property at 32 Court Street when presiding over all future

cases in Augusta, creating observable personal bias and prejudice:

a. Any knowledge would have reasonably resulted from administrative

court information regarding the location of future work-related

offices and parking spaces thereby constituting ‘extrajudicial’

information.

9. All judges in Maine have a personal bias in support of granting Plaintiff a

writ of possession for 32 Court Street because the preplanned courthouse

parking lot cannot be built until the residential structure is vacated and

removed.

10. After all tenants are evicted and physically removed from 32 Court Street,

the building will be razed, a parking lot will be built and judges will

personally benefit when they park their personal automobiles on the land

of the former subject property during their taxpayer-paid employment

activities inside the new courthouse as government agents.

11. Judge Stanfill and Justice Mullen have shown prejudice in favor of

Plaintiff despite Plaintiff’s continuous violation of laws, court rules and

procedures.

a. Judge Stanfill knowingly:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33


i. failed to provide proof of impartiality and jurisdiction after

being challenged,

1. Defendant observed a sign posted inside the District

Court Clerk’s office which reads:

a. NEW COURTHOUSE JANUARY 2015

2.

Judge Stanfill stated she has no knowledge of thelocation of the parking lot of her future place of

employment.

ii. ignored Defendant’s affirmative defenses of:

1. breach of contract,

2. breach of warranty of habitability,

3. malicious retaliation,

4.

violation of rules of civil procedure,5. violation of rules of evidence,

6. fraudulent inducement,

7. fraudulent concealment

iii. failed to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law in

support of her judgment for forcible entry and detainer on

8/20

iv. requiring Defendant to display the same legal precision

required by BAR licensed attorneys in violation of:

1. Art. 1, Sec. 6-A “equal protection of the laws” and

2. Art. 1, Sec. 3 “no subordination nor preference of any one

sect or denomination to another shall ever be established

by law” .

b. Justice Mullen knowingly:

i. failed to rebut Defendant’s claims of personal bias and

prejudice,

ii. failed to provide proof of impartiality and jurisdiction,

iii. ignored genuine issues of material fact within the record,

iv. dismissed first appeal for trial by jury de novo without cause,

v. failed to provide reasonable accommodations upon request,

vi. dismissed second appeal on questions of law without cause,



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33


vii. failed to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law in

support of both of his dismissals of Defendant’s appeals,

viii. requiring Defendant to display the same legal precision

required by BAR licensed attorneys in violation of:

1. Art. 1, Sec. 6-A “equal protection of the laws” and

2.

Art. 1, Sec. 3 “no subordination nor preference of any onesect or denomination to another shall ever be established

by law” .

12. Any denial of Defendant’s demand for a trial by jury de novo is a clear

violation of Defendant’s rights as protected by the Constitution of the State

of Maine:

a. Article 1, Section 1: “enjoying and defending life and liberty” and

“acquiring, possessing and protecting property” b. Article 1, Section 3 “no subordination nor preference of any one sect or

denomination to another shall ever be established by law ”

c. Article 1, Section 4: “freely speak, write” and “the jury shall have a right

to determine, at their discretion, the law and the fact.”

d. Article 1, Section 6-A: “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or

property without due process of law” and “nor be denied the equal

protection of the laws” and “nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s

civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof.”

e. Article 1, Section 9: “nor cruel nor unusual punishment be inflicted”

f. Article 1, Section 11: “nor law impairing the obligation of contracts”

g. Article 1, Section 20: “in all controversies concerning property, the

parties shall have a right to a trial by jury”

h. Article 1, Section 24: “the enumeration of certain rights shall not impair

nor deny others retained by the people”

i.

Article 10, Section 6: “the Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the

State”

13. Judge Stanfill’s and Justice Mullen’s conduct as clearly described herein

demonstrates to a reasonable person that there is grave doubt as to their

impartiality.



14. Defendant affirms that her only

option

to receive

any

kind of fair

legal

and

constitutional outcome is through a trial y

jury de

novo in Superior

Court

which

she

twice requested

in

her

first

and amended

Notices

of

Appeal.

15. Defendant renews her objection

to any bench

trial

without

a

jury.

16. Defendant renews her demand and exercises her rights under Constitution

of

the State

of

Maine

Article 1

Section

4

and

Section

20

for a

trial

y

jury

de

novo in Superior Court

where

the

jury sh ll h ve

a right to determine,

t

their discretion,

the l w

nd the fact.

DATED: September

22

2014

~ L L w w

GINA TURCOTTE

32 COURT STREET APT 1

AUGUSTA MAINE

KENNEBEC

SS.

Personally appeared on this

day

the above-named GINA TURCOTTE and

~ d e oath that she

has

read

the foregoing document knows

the contents

thereof

and

that

the same are true to the best of her knowledge information and belief.

DATED: September

22

2014

Before

me:

N<?tary Public

CERTIFIC TE

O

SERVICE

GINA TURCOTTE certifies that a copy of the

foregoing

document

has been

served by first class

postal

mail on this day

upon

GREGORY ROY at 389 Costello

Road Gardiner Maine.

DATED:

September 22

2014

GINA TURCOTTE

DEFENDANT S

AFFIDAVIT

OF PREJUDICE

SA-14-453 AP-14-56



SUPERIOR COURT

KENNEBEC

ss

DOCKET NO: AP- 14-56

GREG

ROY

PLAINTIFF

v

GINA TURCOTTE

DEFENDANT

STATE OF MAINE

DISTRICT COURT

AUGUSTA

DOCKET

NO: SA-14-453

DEFENDANT S CERT IFICATE

OfCOUNSELofRECORD

Defendant, GINA TURCOTTE hereby certifies that Defendant s Motion for

Recusal

and her

Affidavit

of

Prejudice

are both

filed

in

good faith.

Defendant swears

that

all

facts

are true

and

correct.

28

USC

§

144

and

28

USC §455 requires

an

Affidavit

of Prejudice

((shall be

accompanied

by

a certificate

of counsel

of record st ting th t it is m de in good faith.

Defendant realizes this certificate is normally signed by a licensed attorney, but I

am my own counsel and I am providing this certificate to meet requirements.

Defendant hereby files this Certificate of Counsel of

Record as required.

Respectfully submitted, this 22nd day of Se2tember

2014.

ATED:

September

22, 2014

GINA TURCOTTE

32 COURT STREET APT 1 AUGUSTA ME

Gina Turcotte certifies that a copy

of

the

foregoing document

has beert

served by

first class postal mail

upon

Gregory Roy at 389 Costello Road Gardiner

Maine

on this

day .

DATED:

September

22, 2014

GIN TURCOTTE

DEFENDANT S

CERTIFICATE

OF COUNSEL OF RECORD

Page 1 of 1

Roy v Turcotte Notice of Appeal Full Package Sept 22 2014

Documents