July 13, 2019

Motion to Dismiss 2/23/18 criminal charge “Terrorizing With A Dangerous Weapon”

Waldo Unified Court

Docket No. WALCD-CR-2018-00139

State Of Maine
v.
Laurie L Allen

Defendant, Laurie Allen, pro se, ( her court appointed attorney, Thomas F. Shehan, Jr., refuses to enter this motion but did review this motion for issues and found none. Shehan is withdrawing ) moves this Court to dismiss under:

Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute, 14 M.R.S.A. Sect 556 (dismissing false charges meant to punish defendant’s First Amendment rights) the charge of Terrorizing with a Dangerous Weapon under protection of the United States Constitution First Amendment guaranteeing the right of freedom of speech and expression.

Special motion to dismiss without prejudice, title 14 sec 556 with financial restitution of costs and injury

1. On July 12, 2018, a Waldo County grand jury Indicted Laurie Allen of one count of Terrorizing with a Dangerous Weapon. (Class C). The indictment reads as follows:

“On or about January 10,2018, in Belfast, Waldo County, Maine, Laurie L. Allen, with the use of a dangerous weapon, a firearm did communicate to Mary Mortier, Michael Hurley, Neal Harkness, Eric Sanders, John Arrison, Joseph Slocum, and/or Wayne Marshall, and the natural and probable consequence of the threat was to place Mary Mortier, Michael Hurley, Neal Harkness, Eric Sanders, John Arrison, Joseph Slocum and or Wayne Marshall, in a reasonable fear the crime would be committed.”

2. In October 2017, Defendant Laurie Allen, went target shooting for the first and only time. Laurie does not own any firearms and has only used a firearm this one time.

3. Defendant Laurie Allen filmed the shoot and uploaded the video to her youtube playlist, John & Me. Laurie did not post the video anywhere else and did not send the video to anyone. Laurie made one flippant remark thanking Belfast Public Officials (City Council, City Manager and City Planner) for being her target. Laurie has been protesting and speaking at Belfast City Council and Planning Board meeting of their corruption and destruction to her property and life since May 2011. Laurie Allen has dedicated 8+ years, without compensation to legally expose epic government corruption to the public, first hand, solo and at great expense to Laurie’s below poverty income (18K), health, property, safety and Constitutional rights, too many to list in this motion and not necessary at this time.

Exhibit 1 DVD 10/2017 target shoot https://youtu.be/XrIOrl3qStw

First few seconds I say "Joi Z's turn. I never shot before. I was good in archery though, in camp. When I was 8 or 7, whatever. @ 1 minute John asks me if I want to shoot that target or just shoot. I tell him he doesn't have to fix it (the target) I'm not gonna hit anything. He says yes you will. @1:43 I say I wanna shoot the target. HEY, I wanna shoot the target. Let me have fun.

John says let me fix it. Stop. I say it ain't on red, we're good. John mumbles something. I say yeah that's what he said. @2:50 John says you're good to go baby. I say alright. @3:20 John says you're ready to roll. You have 9 shots.

I'm having a hard time seeing the target through the scope. Later John would tell me because the scope is for his dominant eye vision, it's his rifle. I don't have dominant eye.

@3:59 I finally shoot one and say "oh this is nice. What I'd get. (NOT WHO) Let's go look. Safety on. Oh that's fun. That's nothing. It's a little weinie gun for Laurie. I like it. And little bullets. "

John says You got it. I say "oh f*** yeah. I'm good too. Didn't ya know that." John is telling me it's automatic and I say "yeah it's automatic, just like me. It's not even that loud either. I don't need these plugs. Alright, I'm set. Ohhh, this is cool. I don't even need that stand. Done. I'm done. (meaning done shooting period. I did it and did not want to shoot again.) I did it. I did it. 9 9 9. I'm gonna bring the camera over. John's gonna point out. I hit some."

@6:11 I say "F*****' Miss Piggy Mortier, Mike Hurley, Sanders, Harkness, Arrison, Slocum, Marhsall, blah, blah, blah Thanks for being my target ya assholes."John says Look, ya shot it all full of holes. I say"I shot it all full of holes. And I ain't got no gun. This is John's. Don't shoot me." John counts 6 shots in the target area and says pretty good. I say "pretty good. I got em all on there. All 9 right?" John says yes, nice group. Not bad for your first try. I say "not at all. Watch your ass buddy" (meaning John because he is a sharp shooter. They edited this part to the media to make it seem like I was saying watch your ass to City Council.)

Then John walks away and I follow him with the camera and I say "I'll watch your ass. Go ahead keep on walking. Look at that dupka. Oh Johnny- who's your girl? Who's your girl? He's acting like he can't hear me. It's bullshit. Look at these little things. Tell me you can't hear with these little peanuts. Alright bye."

4. Belfast Police Chief McFadden stalked Laurie’s youtube channel of over 200 video’s and found this innocent target shoot and sent it to the public officials and global media to incite terror, fabricating Laurie Allen as a terrorist.

In October 2017, the same month as the freedom of speech/expression target shoot, Chief McFadden stated in below email to Laurie Allen’s daughter “At this time I don't feel I can argue effectively that she presents an actual danger to herself or others. She's created considerable inconvenience to a number of people but she has also been very careful not to overtly threaten them.”

Belfast Chief McFadden and the State of Maine, violate First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Speech/Expression and legal definition of mailice cited below McFadden’s disturbing email using lies and mental abuse tactics.:

Subject: RE: Regarding Laurie Allen

Date: October 20, 2017 at 7:35:35 AM PDT

To: my daughter

xxxxxx,

Thank you so much for reaching out. It's been obvious to me for a number of years that your mom is suffering from untreated mental illness. There are a couple of things that prevent me from being an effective part in addressing those issues for her. First and foremost, it's my strong opinion that your mother would not be willing to seek treatment voluntarily. I have engaged her in conversation a few years ago when she would actually speak with me, and she was highly offended that I was even suggesting she should try speaking with someone. I may be wrong, but there's nothing she's done or said in the last 5 years that I've known her, which would indicate that I am wrong. Second absent her agreeing to accept help, we would be forced to take her into protective custody involuntarily in order to have a physiological evaluation done. In order for me to do this I would first have to determine she is a danger to herself or someone else. At this time I don't feel I can argue effectively that she presents an actual danger to herself or others. She's created considerable inconvenience to a number of people but she has also been very careful not to overtly threaten them. I have a tremendous amount of experience dealing with individuals suffering from mental illness, and although your mother is struggling she simply isn't going to meet the criteria for involuntary hospitalization in the typical way. Ultimately however, it's my strong belief that hospitalization is exactly what your mother needs.

I would agree that your mother's condition has deteriorated in the last several months. She's made numerous comments recently about her alcohol consumption, and I'm left to wonder if the addition of regular drinking is in some way contributing to the decline we're both noticing in her behavior, having no idea if this is a new development or not it's hard to say how much of an affect if any her drinking is having on the situation though.

This situation is not a typical one. Unfortunately the people who are best positioned to help your mother are the very people she's convinced are evil and out to get her. I know this is part of her mental illness and I personally take no offense to the things she says because of that. But my fear is that she simply won't trust me nor any of the officers here. She's also convinced the hospital along with the doctors and administrators of it are corrupt as well.

Honestly in evaluating the entire situation I believe her family (you and your brother) may be the best people at this time to get her the help she needs. I would suggest speaking with someone at Maine Behavioral Healthcare (207-338-2295) to see what options are there for you. I'm more than happy to assist you in whatever way you think I might be able to. It might be beneficial for you to mention that I'd be more than happy to talk with any of the case workers who you speak with at MBH, sometimes it makes a difference if they understand the background and type of behavior we're seeing from a public safety point of view.

If you'd like to speak with me directly please feel free to call (207-338-5255)

I do appreciate you contacting me and I hope my response is of some help.

Chief McFadden.

https://cyber.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/

Before plunging into the details of the proliferating controversies over freedom of expression

on the Internet, you need some background information on two topics. The first and more

obvious is the Free-Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The relevance and authority of the First Amendment should not be exaggerated; as several

observers have remarked, "on the Internet, the First Amendment is just a local ordinance."

However, free-expression controversies that arise in the United States inevitably implicate

the Constitution. And the arguments deployed in the course of American First-Amendment

fights often inform or infect the handling of free-expression controversies in other countries.

The upshot: First-Amendment jurisprudence is worth studying.

Unfortunately, that jurisprudence is large and arcane. The relevant constitutional provision is

simple enough: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of

the press . . .." But the case law that, over the course of the twentieth century, has been built

upon this foundation is complex. An extremely abbreviated outline of the principal doctrines

would go as follows:

If a law gives no clear notice of the kind of speech it prohibits, it’s "void for vagueness."

If a law burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to advance a

compelling government interest, it’s unconstitutionally "overbroad."

A government may not force a person to endorse any symbol, slogan, or pledge.

Governmental restrictions on the "time, place, and manner" in which speech is

permitted are constitutional if and only if:

they are "content neutral," both on their face and as applied;

they leave substantial other opportunities for speech to take place; and

they "narrowly serve a significant state interest."

On state-owned property that does not constitute a "public forum," government

may restrict speech in any way that is reasonable in light of the nature and purpose

of the property in question.

Content-based governmental restrictions on speech are unconstitutional unless

they advance a "compelling state interest." To this principle, there are six exceptions:

1. Speech that is likely to lead to imminent lawless action may be prohibited.
2. "Fighting words" -- i.e., words so insulting that people are likely to fight back -- may be

prohibited.
3. Obscenity -- i.e., erotic expression, grossly or patently offensive to an average person,

that lacks serious artistic or social value -- may be prohibited.
4. Child pornography may be banned whether or not it is legally obscene and whether or

not it has serious artistic or social value, because it induces people to engage in lewd displays,

and the creation of it threatens the welfare of children.
5. Defamatory statements may be prohibited. (In other words, the making of such statements

may constitutionally give rise to civil liability.) However, if the target of the defamation is a

"public figure," she must prove that the defendant acted with "malice."

If the target is not a "public figure" but the statement involved a matter of "public concern,"

the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with negligence concerning its falsity.

6. Commercial Speech may be banned only if it is misleading, pertains to illegal products, or

directly advances a substantial state interest with a degree of suppression no greater than is

reasonably necessary.

https://thelawdictionary.org/malice/

What is MALICE?

In criminal law. In its legal sense, this word does not simply mean ill will against a person, but signifies a wrongful act done intentionally, without just cause or excuse. Bromage v. Prosser, 4 Barn. & C. 255. A conscious violation of the law (or the prompting of the mind to commit it) which operates to the prejudice of another person. About as clear, comprehensive, and correct a definition as the authorities afford is that “malice is a condition of the mind which shows a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief, the existence of which is inferred from acts committed or words spoken.” Harris v. State, 8 Tex. App. 109. “Malice,” in its common acceptation, means ill will towards some person. In its legal sense, it applies to a wrongful act done intentionally, without legal justification or excuse. Dunn v. Hall, 1 Ind. 344. A man may do an act willfully, and yet be free of malice. But he cannot do an act maliciously without at the same time doing it willfully. The malicious doing of an act in- cludes the willful doing of it. Malice includes intent and will. State v. Bobbins. 06 Me. 328. For other definitions see Shannon v. Jones, 70 Tex. 141. 13 S. W. 477; Williams v. Williams. 20 Colo. 51. 37 Pac. 014; Smith v. Railroad Co., 87 Md. 48. 3S Atl. 1072; In re Freche (D. C.) 109 Fed. 621 ; Craft v. State, 3 Kan. 486; Lewis v. Chapman. 10 N. Y. 309; State v. Avery, 113 Mo. 475. 21 S. W. 193; State v. Witt. 34 Kan. 488. 8 Pac. 709; State v. Walker, 9 Houst. tDel.) 404, 33 Atl. 227; Cotton v. State. 32 Tex. 014; Com. v. Chance, 174 Mass. 245. 54 N. E. 551.75 Am. St. Rep. 306. In the law of libel and slander. An evil intent or motive arising from spite or ill will; personal hatred or ill will; culpable recklessness or a willful and wanton disregard of the rights and interests of the per- ) MALICE son defamed. McDonald v. Brown, 23 R. I. 546, 51 Atl. 213, 58 L. R. A. 768, 91 Am. St. Rep. 659; Hearne v. De Young, 132 Cal. 357, 64 Pac. 576; Cherry v. Des Moines Leader, 114 Iowa, 298, 86 N. W. 323, 54 L R. A. 855, 89 Am. St. Rep. 365; Minter v. Bradstreet Co., 174 Mo. 444, 73 S. W. 668

TLD Example: The defense attorney successfully proved to the jury that his client acted

without malice when he broke into the vacant cabin to escape the snow and freezing temperatures.

Exhibit 2- DVD Illness- March 2018 to present illness from the ankle monitor, harassment, mental abuse and fear tactics from Belfast/Waldo County law enforcement. March and July 2018 video of illness from ankle monitor and law enforcement abuse https://youtu.be/Hr0FMqsEfNc

sickness again at jail for new ankle shackle https://youtu.be/iSmV9YjyomM

At the Waldo Jail for Tuesday check in, 3 cops come in (Juba, Lincoln &?) and brutally cuff me to put me in the jail just steps away. https://youtu.be/borB5XCsqwo

This is only a sample of much more.

5. On February 23, 2018, Friday night, 3 months after the one time shoot, Laurie Allen was arrested with an impossible order of $25,000 bail. Laurie, 58 years old, unemployed, below poverty @ 18k a year has never had a record prior to fabricated charges by Belfast Police Chief McFadden beginning September 2017. Violating Color of Law, excessive force, false arrest and fabrication of evidence, failure to keep from harm:

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights

Color of Law Violations

U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.

Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.

The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law violations, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way. Those violations include the following acts:

Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive.”

Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.

False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur.

Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.

Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.

6. Maine Judiciary violating the Fourteenth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment and at least 3 violations of only 6 Canon Rules first hand in Laurie Allen’s court hearings since the arrest on 2/23/2018. The video judge in Two Bridges Correctional Facility, Judge Robert Murray and Judge Everet Fowle.

a. Fourteenth Amendment, the right to due process- To date after many, many dispositional conferences, Laurie Allen has not been given the right to be heard to dismiss pro se and cannot obtain ADA Entwisle’s discovery.

b. Eighth Amendment, prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment- Impossible bail 25k, Video Judge @ TBCF held 25k bail at hearing on 2/27/18, Tuesday. Laurie was not informed of the reduction but still unwarranted of 5k. Also with held was $50 Laurie’s daughter wired into TBCF for Laurie to make phone calls. Laurie was denied access to the law library. Waldo Jail refused to take the bail payment on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday (3/2/18). Laurie was able to get out of TBCF because Laurie got a note with instructions to an outgoing cell mate on Friday, 3/2/18 @ 9am. as the guards watched and listened. TBCF bailed out. Within minutes, Laurie was paged to prepare for transport back to Belfast. Bail had not been accepted by Waldo Jail at that time.

Brutal ankle tracking monitor and travel restrictions have been denied removal by Judge Robert Murray and Judge Everet Fowle at every hearing as pro se. Both in place to date, 7/7/2019, day 473 of cruel brutality and possible cancer causing satellite tracking on Laurie’s skin where Laurie’s father, sister and 2 brothers have died from cancer with Judge Robert Murray unconcerned for Laurie’s health. Judge Robert Murray viewed the DVD video where the ankle monitor made Laurie Allen sick and was alarmed, asking when the video was taken. It was in March 2018 and Laurie has several of the same episodes throughout the 483 days to date July 7, 2019. This video is included in the Exhibit 2 DVD Illness.

c. Canon Rule violations: Evidence is the court’s refusal to hear and dismiss clear fabrication and false arrest.

https://www.courts.maine.gov/rules_adminorders/rules/text/mc_jud_conduct_plus_2017-9-5.pdf

Last reviewed and edited September 7, 2017 Amendments effective September 5, 2017 MAINE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

MAINE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY NOTE TABLE OF CONTENTS COVERAGE AND EFFECTIVE DATE PREAMBLE TERMINOLOGY CANON 1 A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY; SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY; AND SHOULD AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

RULE 1.1 Compliance with the Law RULE

1.2 Promotion of Confidence in the Judiciary RULE

1.3 Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office

CANON 2 A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY. RULE

2.1 Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Office

2.2 Impartiality and Fairness; Upholding the Law

2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

2.4 External Influences on Judicial Conduct

2.5 Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation

2.6 Ensuring the Right to Be Heard

2.7 Responsibility to Decide

2.11 Disqualification or Recusal

2.12 Supervisory Duties Disciplinary Responsibilities

2.16 A Judge Shall Comply with Disciplinary Authorities

CANON 3 A JUDGE SHALL CONDUCT THE JUDGE’S PERSONAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF JUDICIAL OFFICE. RULE

3.1 Extrajudicial Activities in General

3.5 Use of Nonpublic Information

3.6 Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations

3.7 Participation in Educational, Religious, Charitable, Fraternal, or Civic Organizations and Activities 3.8 Fiduciary Activities

3.9 Service as Arbitrator or Mediator

3.10 Practice of Law

3.11 Financial Activities

3.12 Compensation for Extrajudicial Activities

3.13 Acceptance and Reporting of Gifts, Loans, Bequests, Benefits, or Other Things of Value

3.14 Reimbursement of Expenses and Waivers of Fees or Charges

6. Special motion to dismiss without prejudice, title 14 sec 556 with financial restitution of costs and injury already given to ADA Entwisle.

www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DismissalWithoutPrejudice.aspx

Justice Schall of the United States Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit) wrote the opinion of the court in 2002 case Graves v. Principi:

“A dismissal without prejudice is a dismissal that occurs without and adjudication on the merits. The dismissal of an action without prejudice leaves the parties as though the action had never been brought...A voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves the situation as if the action never had been filed.”

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/14/title14sec556.html

§556. Special motion to dismiss

When a moving party asserts that the civil claims, counterclaims or cross claims against the moving party are based on the moving party's exercise of the moving party's right of petition under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Maine, the moving party may bring a special motion to dismiss. The special motion may be advanced on the docket and receive priority over other cases when the court determines that the interests of justice so require. The court shall grant the special motion, unless the party against whom the special motion is made shows that the moving party's exercise of its right of petition was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law and that the moving party's acts caused actual injury to the responding party. In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleading and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based. [2011, c. 559, Pt. A, §13 (AMD).]

The Attorney General on the Attorney General's behalf or on behalf of any government agency or subdivision to which the moving party's acts were directed may intervene to defend or otherwise support the moving party on the special motion. [1995, c. 413, §1 (NEW).]

All discovery proceedings are stayed upon the filing of the special motion under this section, except that the court, on motion and after a hearing and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted. The stay of discovery remains in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the special motion. [1995, c. 413, §1 (NEW).]

The special motion to dismiss may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms the court determines proper. [1995, c. 413, §1(NEW).]

If the court grants a special motion to dismiss, the court may award the moving party costs and reasonable attorney's fees, including those incurred for the special motion and any related discovery matters. This section does not affect or preclude the right of the moving party to any remedy otherwise authorized by law. [1995, c. 413, §1 (NEW).]

As used in this section, "a party's exercise of its right of petition" means any written or oral statement made before or submitted to a legislative, executive or judicial body, or any other governmental proceeding; any written or oral statement made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive or judicial body, or any other governmental proceeding; any statement reasonably likely to encourage consideration or review of an issue by a legislative, executive or judicial body, or any other governmental proceeding; any statement reasonably likely to enlist public participation in an effort to effect such consideration; or any other statement falling within constitutional protection of the right to petition government. [1995, c. 413, §1 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

1995, c. 413, §1 (NEW). 2011, c. 559, Pt. A, §13 (AMD).

Exhibit #3

https://casetext.com/case/schelling-v-lindell

Title 14 sec 556 Maine Court Hearings and Anti-Slapp Per Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, No. Docket: Han-07-133, Schelling v. Lindell:

A. Application-

6- “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, is designed to guard against meritless lawsuits brought with the intention of chilling or deterring the free exercise of the defandant’s First Amendment right to petition the government by threatening would-be activists with litigation costs. Morse Bros., Inc. v. Webster, 2001 ME 70, 10, 772A.2d 842,846. The anit-SLAPP statute provides defendants who are the targets of such suits with a “special motion to dismiss,” a statutory motion designed to minimize the litigation costs associated with the defense of such merit-less suits. Id., 15,7 772A2.d at 848.

7- To prevail on a special motion to dismiss, the defendant carries the initial burden to show that the suit was based on some activity that would qualify as an exercise of the defendant’s First Amendment right to petition the government. 14 M.R.S. sec 556. Once the defendant demonstrates that this is the basis for the suit, and therefore that the statute applies, the burden falls on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant’s activity (1) was without “reasonable factual support,” (2) was without an “arguable

basis in law,” and (3) resulted in actual injury to the plaintiff.. Id.

8- We allow interlocutory appeals from denials of special motions to dismiss *1230 brought pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute because a failure to grant review of these decisions at this stage would impose additional litigation costs on defendants, the very harm the statute seeks to avoid, and would result in a loss of defendants’ susbstantial rights. Morse Bros., 2001 ME 70, 15, 772 A.2dat 848,

11- Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute very broadly defines the exercise of the “right to petition.” The statute includes within the definition of petitioning activity: Any statement to a legislative, executive or judicial body;

*Any statement made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a governmental entity;

*Any statement likely to encourage consideration or review of an issue by a governmental entity;

*Any statement likely to enlist public participation in encouraging a government body to consider a particular issue; and

*Any other statement falling within constitutional protection of the right to petition the governement.

21- To clarify the nature of the injury Schelling would be required to show in order to give rise to compensable damages for purely emotional or psychic harm under the anti-SLAPP statute, we briefly review the development of the compensability of emotional damages.

22- There was a time when purely emotional injury was not compensable in Maine unless the plaintiff had also suffered some physical harm or contact as a result of the tortfeasor’s conduct. See Herrick v. Evening Express Publ’g Co., 120 Me. 138, 113 A. 16 (1921). Over the past thirty years however, we have moved away significantly from the strict common law limitation. We began the modernization of emotional damage compensability in Maine with our decision in Wallace v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, Inc., 269 A.2d 117 (Me. 1970). In that case, we held that purely emotional or psychic suffering, if borth “severe” and manifested by some “objective 1233 symptomatology” (such as nausea) could *1233 be compensable. Id. At 121. At that time, we concluded that the demonstration of objective symptomatology associated with the plaintiff’s emotional distress was a necessary bulwark against a deluge of fraudulent and spurious claims of emotional injury. Id.

24- The rule that emerged from Culbert was a simple one that allowed compensation for emotional harm that was “serious” provided that all other elements of the tort claim were satisfied. Id. We held that “serious mental distress” existed “where a reasonable person, normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstance of the event.” Id.

25- Following the Culbert decision, the rule regarding the types of emotional injuries compensable in Maine has remained substantially the same. Since that time, we have clarified the foundational aspects of compensable emotional harm by explicitly concluding that minor emotional injuries, such as hurt feelings, are not compensable. Gammom v. Osteopathic Hosp. Of Me., Inc., 534 A.2d 1282, 1285 (Me. 1987). In other words, we have made it clear there is no recognition of damage to an “eggshell psyche” in Maine. Id. Most recently, in Curtis v. Porter, we reiterated that emotional distress alone is not compensable unless it is “so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.” 2001 ME 158, 10, 784 A.2d 18, 23 (citation omitted).

https://sosen.org/blog/2016/08/01/second-look-at-are-gps-ankle-bracelets-harming-people-that-are-forced-to-wear-them.html

Second look at ” Are GPS ankle bracelets harming people that are forced to wear them?

The courts have the knowledge that shaming is a form of punishment as defined by the Court cases of People v. Meyer and People v. Lowe, 606 N.E.2d. People v. Molz, 113 N.E.2d, People v. Johnson 528 N.E.2d, State v. Burdin 924 S.W.2d ,People v. Letterlough 655 N.E.2d, Lindsay v. State 606 So. 2D..
One of the unintended consequences of placing GPS on people is the demoralizing effect that it has on them and how they can go into a emotional and mental down spiral because of having to explain why they have something strapped to their ankle.

“Eighty-nine percent of probation officers surveyed by the Justice Department felt that “offenders’ relationships with their significant others changed because of being monitored.” Both officers and those monitored observed that the ankle band had a distinct impact on children. As one parent testified, “When it beeps, the kids worry about whether the probation officer is coming to take me to jail. The kids run for it when it beeps.” Another noted that his child repeatedly strapped a watch around his ankle “to be like Daddy.””

So beyond the health risks there is also a risk to mental health of people that are subjected to the unconstitutional invasion into their privacy, our Supreme Court has said that placing a GPS on a person or their property is in fact a violation of constitutional standards. At the present time one of the ways that the Parole and Probation department is getting away with this as they are forcing a person to sign a waiver. If they don’t sign the waiver they will be imprisoned, so they are forcing someone to give up a constitutional right the right to privacy by coercion. The fact is this opens up parole and probation not only to civil rights constitutional tort lawsuits under USC 1983. There is also the possible federal charges being placed against them as individuals under title 18 of the United States codes.
Since this article was originally posted in November of 2013 new information has come out about the detrimental effects of having cell phone radiation. Remember unlike cell phone radiation that someone gets from picking up and using their cell phone for a couple hours a day we are talking about a device that transmits cell phone radiation 24 hours a day seven days a week, so the short and long-term effects may well be a thousandfold more than someone who has a cell phone and uses it. According to the latest research a person is three fold more likely to end up with a brain tumor if they use their cell phone more than 900 hours within their lifetime that means they would reach that 900 hours using their cell phone for 2 1/2 hours a day within one year or in the case of an ankle monitor that is on 24 hours a day, seven days a week they would reach that 900 hours within 38 days of having it strapped on. Obviously having a strap to your ankle you’re not looking at brain tumors but in the case of having strapped to your ankle there is a high possibility for skin cancer as well as bone cancer, not to mention the fact that cell phone radiations have been proven to restrict blood flow. Take a look at the articles below that not only look at the danger of cell phone radiation but the effectiveness, reliability and psychological damage to people that have had these things strapped to their ankles.

There is also the old comment of follow the money, take a look at how much money is spent on lobbying our governmental officials as well as campaign contributions that has been done by owners and board members of companies that manufacture these devices, not to mention the other organizations that the same people sat on the boards of directors of who are also doing lobbying and contributing to politicians.

Here is a simple question that may have long-term effects and may bring about lawsuits costing the state governments billions of dollars for their total disregard of human safety.

The question is, quite simply, is the forced use of GPS ankle bracelets that transmit information over cell phone frequencies causing damage to the people that are forced to wear them and did the manufacturers of these devices include FCC warning tags that were disregarded by the people placing these on the people who are required to wear them?

Realize that some countries have gone so far as to ban the use of cell phones around pregnant mothers, and may not be used anywhere close to a child.

Cell Phone Radiation Lawsuits:
Bernstein Liebhard LLP Notes new study finding
cell phone radiation may cause brain tissue damage.

In a press release issued March of this year, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing clients in cell phone radiation lawsuits, notes that a new study has found that radiation from cell phones may cause damage to brain tissue.

According to a report from the Daily Mail, researchers with Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority found that one hour of cell phone radiation can cause cells in blood vessel walls to shrink,

allowing potentially harmful substances in the blood to ‘leak’ into the brain. The two-year study also found that repeated exposure to cell phone radiation could make the blood-brain barrier more permeable, leading to increased brain damage. “Repeated occurrences of these events on a daily basis, over a long period of time, could become a health hazard due to possible accumulation of brain tissue damage,” the study authors concluded.*

“This research is just further evidence that exposure to cell phone radiation can affect the brain in harmful ways. We agree with the study authors that more research on this issue is urgently needed”, says Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The Firm is currently investigating the link between cell phones and brain cancer, and is part of a small consortium of law firms actively representing plaintiffs in cell phone radiation lawsuits.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently submitted a proposal to reevaluate cell phone radiation emission standards, something it has not done since 1996. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) has criticized the current standards as being outdated, compared to those of international regulatory agencies, and for failing to reflect the most recent research on cell phone radiation.

Remember that classic “this is your brain on drugs” commercial, with the egg frying in a pan? If you soon see a “this is your brain on cell phones” clip, don’t say we didn’t warn you: cell phone radiation may be slowly sautéing your noodle finds new research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Using a first-of-its-kind technique for measuring electromagnetic radiation researchers found the radio frequency field generated by your cell phone causes brain tissue to heat up. This proves your brain is absorbing radiation from your cell, study author David Gultekin, Ph.D., a researcher at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, tells MensHealth.com.

While Gultekin and his colleagues can’t say exactly how much cell phone radiation exposure is safe, the World Health Organization has classified radio frequency fields as possibly carcinogenic, meaning exposure may put you at greater risk for brain cancer, the study explains.

This is not the first study indicating cell phones could eventually cause serious health problems. Check out our 2010 report: Is Your Life on the Line? However, in the game of Russian roulette you may be playing by surrounding yourself with cellular devices, this is one more bullet, Devra Lee Davis Ph.D., founder of the Environmental Health Trust, tells MensHealth.com

Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation Up-Regulates Apoptosis Genes in Primary Cultures of Neurons and Astrocytes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713174/)

“The health effects of cell phone radiation exposure are a growing public concern. This study investigated whether expression of genes related to cell death pathways are dysregulated in primary cultured neurons and astrocytes by exposure to a working GSM (Global System for Mobile Communication) cell phone rated at a frequency of 1900 MHz.” –

“Headache has been reported among cell phone users compared to non-users [7]. When rats were exposed to RF/MW radiation to reproduce normal human exposure, the life span and tumorigenicity of rats were unchanged [1, 21] but evidence of oxidative damage was found in brain tissues [19, 29]. RF/MW radiation induced damage can lead to death in single cell organisms [3], inhibit cell proliferation [9], cause DNA damage [11, 32], and alter gene expression in different cell types including brain cells as measured by gene microarrays [6, 14, 15]. “

For more information, try these links:

Affidavit

7/10/2019 Narrative for 2/23/18 criminal charge “Terrorizing With A Dangerous Weapon”
Docket No. WALCD-CR-2018-00139
State Of Maine
v.
Laurie L Allen

In January 2018,Spectrum had corruptly cut Laurie Allen’s internet, landline and cable, an 8 year full paying customer.. Since May 2017 Laurie’s property and rights to life are being taken by abutting May 2017 owners of 23 Seaview Terrace. Mark Rae, his mother, Penny Rae Cameron, step-father B.O. Cameron, grand daughter Kayla Cameron LaCombe, their family real estate agent Terry LaCombe, their attorney and Belfast City Attorney Bill Kelly, and worker Kevin Page with the support and illegal approvals of Belfast Chief McFadden, Belfast City Council, Belfast City Manager Joe Slocum, Belfast City Planner/ Zoning, Wayne Marshall and City Tax Assessor Martin Brent. Details of Chief McFaddens fabricated harassment, fabricated charges and 2 false arrests can be found in the narrative for dismissal motions of two 2017 harassment charges at the 10th hearing/dispositional conference on 7/23/2019 @ 10:30 a.m.

The third charge to be heard on 7/23/2019 @ 10:30a.m. is Terrorizing with a Dangerous Weapon.

This is the narrative for that arrest on 2/23/2018 that is yet to be heard.

At 12:55 pm on February 23, 2018, Laurie Allen sent this email to then Attorney General Janet Mills calling out 8 years of corrupted FOIA requests and Canon Rule violations by Judge Patricia Worth, Judge Joseph Field, Judge Paul Mathew and Judge Robert Murray. Since this email, Judge Everet Fowle, Supreme Court Judge Donald Alexander, Judge E. Mary Kelly and Laurie’s 2/27/18 video trial female Judge ? (pretrial case manager Rick Otto is not responding with the name) at Two Bridges Correctional Facility, Wiscasset, Maine, have violated these Judiciary Canon Rules. This email proves 8 years of unhealthy stress from government corruption continually targeted to Laurie Allen since the Belfast City Hall forced water slaughter corruptly tore through Laurie’s small property abutting MaineHealth’s zone violating campus and Judge Patricia Worth’s friend’s Penny Rae Cameron and B.O. Cameron, illegal zoning abutters @ 23 Seaview Terrace.

From: LAURIE ALLEN <laurieallen55@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 12:39 PM
To: attorney.general@maine.gov; LAURIE ALLEN; chief@belfastmepd.org
Cc: same
Subject: Re: dismiss/corrupt Judge Worth, Fields, Mathews

Maine Attorney General Janet Mills and Deputy Chief Judge Honorable Susan Sparaco,

To date, I have not received ONE FOIA request 8 years and counting FROM MILLS. My challenge in the private chambers of BEAUTIFUL destroy for children concentration camps sentenced by MILLS is on Monday January 22, 2018 for my lobotomy. I have yet to receive any FOIA requested to MILLS & SPARACO & MURRAY & MATHEWS and yada, yada, yada ... TO SILENCE MOM WITH YOUR SYSTEM OF FELONS.

I am at the Belfast Public Library because Belfast Chief of Police Michael McFadden, prior Maine State INTERNET CHILD PORN Detective (per Peter Taber, 40 year Belfast police reporter, is a "KNUCKLE DRAGGING THUG") and his brother-in-law, child porn download to their target of the whim, TWC Belfast home invasion, TWC/Spectrum guy Tom unknown, has cut ALL my media freedom of speech and trash. Cable, landline, thank you so much, child gone, stinking internet. Invite only by Tom and Mike.

I am sending this email shortly, printing and delivering to Waldo County District Court Clerks for another FOIA request for ALL transcripts on Monday, 1/22/2018 @ 2:30 pm, at Waldo Superior County Superior Court with which dishonorable is a crap shoot. And of course for closed private insane session felony Mills ordered lobotomy. Wrong cranial Miss Mills.

I am quite certain that I will receive nothing true or sane. But, the rope is your to tighten. Or stop.

FYI STATE OF MAINE V. LAURIE L ALLEN Criminal Docket Waldo Docket No. WALCD-CR-2017-0082 Offense: 001 HARASSMENT.

This is to notify you that a HEARING has been set for MOTION FOR MENTAL EXAMINATION on 2/26/2018 at 2:20 pm at the : WALDO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 137 CHURCH STREET, BELFAST, ME 04915. YOUR PRESENCE IS REQUIRED ON THIS DATE AND TIME.

Date 02/07/2018

Karen Page, Asst. Clerk of Courts

Attention Defendant:

Failure to appear at the above date and time may result in a default being entered, bail being forfeited, and the issuance of an arrest warrant.

D.A. : JONATHAN R LIBERMAN

Officer JOHN GIBBS Dept: BEL

Ditto same private operation, lobotomy, another false harassment ordered silence by AG Miss Mills, docket No. WALCD-CR-1017-00839.

I WILL PERSONALLY AND PUBLICLY STAND TALL AND COME TO BELFAST DISTRICT COURT OWNED CLERK, NOT ALLOWED TO LEGALLY VIDEO TAPE CLERK AREA PER CORRUPT OWNED CORPORAL DUDLEY, AND ASK FOR ALL THE COURT TRANSCRIPTS FOR EVERY STINKING COURT JESTER. SINCE RETIRED DISHONORABLE FIELDS BEGAN MY HIT IN 2011 . RIGHT. YO TODD BEAMER LET'S ROLL. SEE YA FRIDAY. LOBOTOMY OR NOT. BE BRAVE, BLOW MY FACE OFF BUT DO NOT "ANONYMOUSLY OR PROUDLY" SEND VIDEO OR PICS TO MY BABIES.

Always,

Mom with love.

At 6:15pm, 2/23/2018, in the cold dark, someone was knocking on Laurie Allen’s door. Laurie went to the window, there were not any vehicles and saw Officer Jon Guba in plain clothes at her door. Guba wanted Laurie to come outside to talk to him. Laurie refused stating she would talk to him from the window. Two uniformed Belfast police officers jumped out from hiding in the bushes and stormed towards Laurie’s door to bust it open. Laurie ran to grab her phone to call 911 while running to open her door to stop the police from breaking it down and releasing Laurie’s beagles. Laurie lives alone. As Laurie came outside while talking to 911, an officer grabbed the phone and threw it to the ground. Laurie had given the 911 operator her name and address by that time. Laurie was cuffed and two officers pushed Laurie down the road of Seaview Terrace towards Northport Ave. Laurie begged to be allowed to put jeans on. She was only wearing tight inappropriate leggings and a shirt. The officers refused and from Northport Ave., a Belfast police SUV turned right onto Seaview Terrace and shoved Laurie inside. Laurie kept repeating “I have nothing to say, I want an attorney.” to the Waldo Jail and in the garage bay of the Waldo Jail. Laurie was alone in the SUV in the garage for at least 10 minutes still repeating “I have nothing to say, I want an attorney.” Officer Richards kept circling the outside of the SUV yelling “Shut that fucking bitch up.”, the entire time that Laurie sat cuffed in the SUV.

Inside the jail, Laurie kept her eyes closed as Officer Seth searched her and questioned her. He yelled at her for moving when she reached for a book to read. Laurie’s bail was a ridiculous $25,000. Laurie, then 57, was below poverty @ 18k a year and did not have any record prior to false charges and arrests by Chief McFadden in September/October 2017. Laurie called her wealthy brother, George Allen in Skowhegan, Me., George would not post the bail nor assist with an attorney. Laurie was placed into the cell and had gone on a hunger strike as soon as the Belfast officers grabbed her from her home. Laurie was certain that she was going to die from an incarcerated “suicide” aka rape death and hoped to die in a hospital of organ failure instead.

Laurie’s friend went to her home to care for her beagles Stewie and Gordon, that Friday night, 2/23/18. He found Laurie’s cell phone on the dining room table. Belfast police had entered Laurie’s home without her permission with no one to witness what was taken and if surveillance was planted.

Officer Seth came into Laurie’s cell and stating he brought her 2 blankets instead of 1 and offered to make her bed up and that he was sorry for yelling at her. Laurie went to the corner of the cell and refused the offer. It was disturbing. The television was on all night long and after midnight only showed a shopping channel of sexual vibrators until 6am. It was very disturbing. Previously, Laurie had received 2 sexually threatening anonymous letters in the mail and Chief McFadden would not return Laurie’s visit to the Police Department or calls to report the letters. Laurie brought the letters to Sheriff Trafton and he was not very concerned, stating there was nothing he could do. Instead, Sheriff Trafton spoke of his dislike for City Manager Joe Slocum and Nancy See, assistant to tax assessor Bob Whiteley.

Friday night, Saturday, Saturday night, and Sunday, Laurie did not eat and remained in her cell. Her constant requests for an attorney were ignored. Sunday afternoon, 2/25/18, Laurie was transported by Officer Laurie to Two Bridges Correctional Facility, Wiscasset, Maine. Upon entering the cell pod, Laurie immediately requested access to to the law library. The guard snickered and said “You ain’t gettin’ into no law library.” Later, the acting therapist came into the pod and had a cell mate take all her clothes off and put her into the bubble, s contained cell with full visibility. Guards were taking the newer mattresses from the women’s cells andl replacing them with old, thin, blue mattresses. The male prisoners prepared the women’s horrible food. Salt had to be bought. The women were contained to the pod, no outdoor yard time, gym, etc. Allowed once a week to a book piled room and allowed to knit/crochet in the pod for a few hours per week.

Laurie’s daughter had found instructions on the TBCF website and wired $50 into Two Bridges as instructed so that Laurie could make phone calls. Laurie was never advised that the money was there. Laurie could not contact the outside. Laurie refused to sign the medical form to allow treatment by Two Bridges Correctional Facility, the 3^rd day of her hunger strike.

Tuesday, 2/27/18, hunger strike day 4, the acting therapist man told Laurie that if she did not eat on this 4^th day, she would be placed in the bubble. Laurie did not care or respond. That morning was her trial hearing via video. While waiting in another room, Laurie requested to get a drink of water. The deputy told Laurie no water. Laurie requested to go to the bathroom. The deputy told her no because then she would get a drink of water. Laurie requested a cup to urinate in. The deputy got angry but he had to let her go to the bathroom because there were many witnesses.

As Laurie was seated for her hearing, the attorney of the day, David Sinclair, Bath, Maine, told Laurie that he knew she was representing herself pro se, but asked if he could sit next to her at the table during the hearing. Laurie said yes and David told her what an easy win this was. Citing inaccurate precedence with a protest sign against President Bush, he thought. Laurie stated that it was an easy dismiss but was not allowed into the law library to prepare the dismissal. The female Judge came on the screen with the DA. The DA spoke lies of murderous stalking in town by Laurie, painting Laurie as a terrorist. After he was done, the Judge asked Laurie to respond. Laurie said “Play the target shoot video and dismiss.” The Judge and the DA had not even viewed the video. The Judge refused to view the video on camera and called a recess. David Sinclair was very excited and asked Laurie to let him defend her. Laurie decided she could use him to assist her in the necessary legal documents and said yes. The Judge came back on and stated that she could understand why the Belfast officials that Laurie thanked for being her one time target felt threatened. The Judge stuck with the 25k bail and ended the trial. David stated that he would be in contact and left. Laurie ended her hunger strike because David would get her out. David never contacted Laurie in Two Bridges Correctional Facility again. The guards told Laurie that she could not contact her attorney, David Sinclair.

On Wednesday 2/28/18 in the pod cell, the noon news broadcast that Laurie Allen, arrested for terrorizing Belfast official with a dangerous weapon, had her bail reduced to $5,000. No one informed Laurie of the bail reduction. She was thankful to have heard it on the news, Laurie’s friend saw that newscast and knew where Laurie had exactly $5,000 in her house for bills. Her friend, called David Sinclair to tell him that he was going to post the 5k bail. David corruptly told him to go to Waldo District Court to pay the bail. My friend knew the bail was to be paid at Waldo Correctional but went to the court house as instructed by court appointed David Sinclair, and the court clerk directed my friend to pay the bail at Waldo Correctional on that Wednesday, 2/28/18. Waldo Correctional gave my friend the run around and would not take the bail posting. My friend tried again on Thursday, 3/1 and received the same run around. My friend went again on Friday morning, 3/2/18.

Meanwhile, Laurie could not call her friend to find out why the bail wasn’t posted on Wednesday or Thursday. At 8:30 am on Friday, 3/2/18, Laurie asked the guard at the desk if her bail had been posted.

The guard snickered and said NO BAIL POSTED! It was then that Laurie knew she was not getting out of Two Bridges Correctional Facility alive. Laurie remembered that a cell mate was leaving at 9 am. Laurie began giving verbal and written instructions to the outgoing cell mate. The guards were watching and listening. After the cell mate left @ 9am, there came the announcement over the speaker. “Allen transport back to Belfast 15 minutes.”

The Belfast transport officer had walked past my friend waiting to pay the bail again, that morning, Friday, 3/2/18 in Waldo Corrections. The officer told my friend that he was on his way to transport Laurie back to Belfast. The bail had not been paid at that time. Proof that Two Bridges bailed on the ending plan for Laurie because of the information giving to the outgoing cellmate.

Laurie was shackled with an ankle monitor at Waldo Correctional and released after they took the last of her money and gave her brutal travel restrictions to punish her. No left from her street, Seaview Terrace onto Northport Avenue restricted rom Waldo County General Hospital and her doctor’s office, Belfast City Park where Laurie walked her dogs daily and visited with her families remains in the Penobscot Bay, to the entire downtown Belfast, no library, internet, court house, police station, Belfast City Hall, City Council meetings, waterfront, post office, stores, eateries, auto store, through downtown to the west side of Belfast past Belfast variety where Laurie went fishing, to Swan Lake where Laurie went fishing, no left on Route 1 South next to Seaview Terrace where Laurie went to Irvings for gas, milk and items daily, no Aubuchon Hardware where Laurie went often, no access to her vet, @ Little River on Rte 1 South, all the way into Northport, no Bayside store and only allowed into Bayside at Rte 1 and Cross Street after taking back roads through Belfast to get to that section of Route 1 South, no rightt onto Main St, Belfast from Route 1 North to McDonald’s all the way down to the waterfront, only allowed to go to Hannaford but not around the corner to Laurie’s drugstore, Walgreen’s on Starrett Drive. Not allowed up Lincolnville Ave past the Hannaford entrance or her bank.

Laurie only leaves her home when necessary. Food, gas and court hearings, less than once a week since 3/2/18. Falsifying bail condition violations to place Laurie back in their jails cannot be ignored.

In January 2018, the State had put in a motion to order Laurie to take a title 15 state forensic psychiatric evaluation to deem her incompetent to represent herself pro se in court. Regardless that Laurie had won in small claims court, pro se. Attorney David Sinclair advised Laurie to take the title 15 to “shut them up”. In 2007 during Laurie’s divorce, she had taken a psychiatric evaluation along with her children, by the Guardian Ad litem, Dr. Rosenbaum, Middlesex County Family Court, NJ. Laurie passed without any mental issues to the awe of Dr. Rosenbaum, hired by Laurie’s husband.. Laurie almost allowed the title 15 because of David. Then David told Laurie that it may seem crazy but it would help her case if she had sent the target shoot video out to the Belfast officials mentioned. Laurie responded “Absolutely not.” Laurie became very ill from the ankle monitor and called David several times to motion for removal. He never returned her calls. By April 2018, David Sinclair had not filed any of Laurie’s motions. Laurie left a message for David and asked him if he was representing her or the State. David’s only motion to withdraw as Laurie’s court appointed attorney was granted April 2018. Wasting more tax payers money.

Laurie was restricted from the Courthouse, library, police department and post office making it near impossible to work her case pro se. At every pro se hearing, each Judge would try to convince Laurie to take a court appointed attorney. Nevertheless, Laurie persisted. Laurie’s motions to dismiss were never allowed to be heard. Laurie went to all 7 pro se hearings/dispositional conferences alone since the first hearing on 12/8/17 where Judge Paul Matthews denied Laurie’s right to be heard for dismissal of fabricated harassment charges.

June 6, 2018 was another dispositional conference at Waldo Superior Court for Laurie’s motions for dismissal of all charges and dismissal of the Title 15 psychiatric state evaluation because Laurie had just won a protection order in May 2018 by Judge Sparaco against abutter Mark Rae. More proof of the fabricated cease harassment notice against Laurie from Chief McFadden for 23 Seaview Terrace on September 7, 2017. Chief McFadden dismissed hate crimes to Laurie by Mark Rae and entities of 23 Seaview Terrace. Chief McFadden with Belfast City Hall officials, enabled zoning violations, destruction of property, vandalism, theft, threats, trespass, taking of land, and more since Laurie was sold undisclosed state wide corruption to her home on June 28,2010.

Daily terror from abutting 23 Seaview Terrace and law enforcement since May 2017 to date. Chief McFadden refused to grant Laurie a cease harassment against 23 Seaview Terrace from May2017 to September 7,2017 and offered one to Mark Rae on the same day without justification. Fabricating evidence, violations, summons and arrest with 23 Seaview Terrace violating their own cease harassment notice with the crimes to Laurie stated above. Proven with video documentation. Chief McFadden and his officers protect the illegal home/medical office construction and entities of 23 Seaview Terrace while harassing Laurie to break her. In conjunction with the Waldo Judiciary denying Laurie her rights to be heard since 12/8/2017.

Laurie brought a witness for the first time, her 21 year old son to the June 6, 2018, 11 a.m., dispositional conference at Waldo Superior Court. The first floor of the busy Waldo Superior Courthouse was evacuated, no employees, no security guards, no security scanners, and not a person to be found. They proceeded up the stairs and into the court room and stepped directly into a paneled courtroom resembling the District Court. The descending stairs into the vaulted ceiling of the Superior Court room were not visible. The only people in this courtroom stage were Judge Robert Murray, ADA Entwisle, Marshall Dudley, the court clerk, Laurie and her son. Judge Robert Murray was alarmed to see Laurie with a witness. Judge Murray questioned Laurie until she told him the witness was her son. Judge Murray left the bench and did not come back for 10 minutes.

Judge Murray returned and gave the order of the motions. Judge Murray denied the title 15 psychiatric evaluation by ADA Entwisle because Laurie gave proof of winning the protection order in May 2018 pro se. Judge Murray denied Laurie’s motion to have the ankle monitor removed again. Judge Murray denied Laurie’s motion to rescind travel restrictions but told ADA Entwisle to allow access to Laurie’s Dr. at the MaineHealth WCGH campus. Judge Murray denied Laurie’s motion for financial restitution of court expenses. Judge Murray called recess and left without stating another court date. Laurie told her son that Judge Murray must have needed to use the “throne”. Judge Murray never came back and did not hear Laurie’s motions for dismissal of 2 harassment charges and terrorizing with a dangerous weapon.

Laurie would later learn at the August 24, 2018 District Court hearing with resistant Judge Everet Fowle and ADA Entwisle that Judge Robert Murray lied and notated that he heard Laurie’s motion’s for dismissal and denied them. I requested Judge Robert Murray’s written decisions for his claimed denial of motions to dismiss 2 charges of 2017 harassment and 1 charge of terrorizing with a dangerous weapon 2018. Judge Robert Murray refused to provide his written decision on November 19, 2018.

On July 12, 2018, a Waldo County grand jury Indicted Laurie Allen of one count of Terrorizing with a Dangerous Weapon. (Class C). The indictment reads as follows:

In October 2017, Laurie Allen, went target shooting for the first and only time. Laurie does not own any firearms and has only used a firearm this one time. Laurie Allen filmed the shoot and uploaded the video to her youtube playlist, John & Me. Laurie did not post the video anywhere else and did not send the video to anyone. Laurie made one flippant remark thanking Belfast Public Officials (City Council, City Manager and City Planner) for being her target. Laurie has been protesting and speaking at Belfast City Council and Planning Board meeting of their corruption and destruction to her property and life since May 2011. Laurie Allen has dedicated 8+ years, without compensation to legally expose epic government corruption to the public, first hand, solo and at great expense to Laurie’s below poverty income (18K), health, property, safety and Constitutional rights, too many to list in this motion and not necessary at this time.

10/2017 target shoot https://youtu.be/XrIOrl3qStw

@1:43 I say I wanna shoot the target. HEY, I wanna shoot the target. Let me have fun. John says let me fix it. Stop. I say it ain't on red, we're good. John mumbles something. I say yeah that's what he said.

@2:50 John says you're good to go baby. I say alright.

@3:20 John says you're ready to roll. You have 9 shots.

I'm having a hard time seeing the target through the scope. Later John would tell me because the scope is for his dominant eye vision, it's his rifle. I don't have dominant eye.

Belfast Police Chief McFadden stalked Laurie’s youtube channel of over 200 video’s and found this innocent target shoot and sent it to the public officials and global media to incite terror, fabricating Laurie Allen as a terrorist on February 23,2018. Four months after the one time, innocent target shoot where Laurie was not a threat or threatening anyone to date.

Belfast Chief McFadden and the State of Maine, violate Laurie’s First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Speech/Expression and legal definition of mailice cited below McFadden’s disturbing email using lies and mental abuse tactics.: