Richard Cayer July 21, 2019
St. David, Me.04773
Hon. Roland A. Cole, Chief Justice Cumberland County Courthouse 205 Newbury St, Room A260
Portland, Maine 04101 (207) 822-4174
Honorable Chief Justice Cole:
We write to you and pray that you will require Justice Allen Hunter and Justice Harold Stewart to recuse themselves from any future legal actions concerning us, Richard and Ann Cayer, or in the alternative, grant us a change of venue.
For more than 13 years, Justice Hunter has presided over many of our court cases against, and by the town of Madawaska. In 2006, Justice Hunter overturned two decisions of the Madawaska Board of Appeals (BOA) for building permits. Although we were successful with the court decisions and did receive our permits, the Town employees were successful in revoking both of them illegally, once again. We do not wish to relitigate those cases again.
In 2009, the Maine Supreme Court heard and Denied a Contempt of Court against the Town of Madawaska by us for unrelated reasons not in dispute today. The significance of this case was that following this decision by the Maine Supreme Court, Justice Hunter requested that we sit in his chamber where he advised us not to cause any more problems, and enjoy life. Good advice that we sincerely planned to follow.
Unfortunately, the Town administration did not feel the same, and within 6 months of that decision, on June 3, 2010, the Town filed a meritless lawsuit against us for a Recreational Vehicle (RV) violation. The role that Justice E. Allen Hunter played in this case has caused us years of unnecessary financial loss, loss of health, quality of life, and much pain and suffering that we are still experiencing and defending to this day.
The following is our layman attempt to provide you with a history of what we believe may be serious violations of our rights by both Justice Hunter, and Justice Stewart. We are not requesting anything other than these two Justices be recused from any future case concerning us, and allow us to simply defend ourselves in court.
The financial loss and stress caused by their action has taken a great toll on both of our lives, and our health. We have complained, and begged our attorney to defend us with more legal authority, including recusal of the Justices. He told us that was difficult to do. We believe that he is concerned that it will harm the good will that he has built up over the years with the court. Because I have been critical and demanded that he do more to defend us, he warned us that we are near a breaking point with him. I understand and sympathize with his concerns and frustration with us. We do not wish to cause him any more problems. We also fear that even this letter to you may be the breaking point if it creates more problems for him, and he may quit defending us. Attorney Rossignol is a good man who is doing his best to protect us, in an impossible situation. We have tried to find another attorney for many years without success. For this reason, I am attempting to address this matter the only way I know how without his involvement. Please know, all we are asking, is for Justice Stewart and Hunter to recuse themselves from any future case involving us without causing harm to anyone, including, and especially, our attorney.
We apologize for the lengthy letter but it is truly a very condensed version of the facts. We have another longer version on our blog site which is 91 pages which is also a condensed version of what the courts have put us through. See: ourcivilrights.me
It is important to note, that although the Town of Madawaska has filed countless SZO code violations against us, they have never succeeded with even one claim.
The following facts are pursuant to the Recreational Vehicle violation which was Dismissed with Prejudice by the Town and its employees on 09/07/2016. DOCKET RECORD - Docket No. CARSC-CV-2012-00155.
Although no individual issue, claim, or action by the judges may rise to the level of requiring their recusal, it is the cumulative effect of those issues, claims, and actions by Justice Hunter and Stewart that we believe achieve and surpass that legal requirement, or in the alternative a change of venue.
1. On June 3, 2010, CEO Ouellet issued a certified letter to Richard and Ann Cayer claiming that we were in violation of several requirements referenced in the Madawaska Shoreland Zoning Code. (SZO)
2. On June 21, 2010, CEO Ouellet issued another letter informing us of a meeting with the selectmen to discuss our [alleged]violation with the selectmen on June 29, 2010.
3. At the June 29, 2010 selectmen meeting, the board decided there was a SZO violation, (something they do not have a right to do) fined us $500.00 and required us to sign a Consent agreement that we never agreed to sign because, (1) we were not the violators, (2) there was no violation, (3) the consent agreement was based on lies, and determined by us to be extortion and an abuse of process.
4. The town filed an enforcement action against us on August 11, 2010. We removed the case from District Court to Superior court for a Jury Trial on 11/15/2010, not realizing that Justice Hunter had such deep animosity against us because we had filed a contempt of court against the town of Madawaska that was decided on December 15, 2009. ARO-9-45. The Town of Madawaska brought the meritless RV lawsuit against us 6 months after the Contempt of court decision.
5. By reviewing Justice Allen Hunter’s actions outlined in the Docket Record which clearly shows he never intended to allow us a Jury Trial, and took many questionable delaying actions, which he falsely justified by showing that we had to request continuances which were for bench trials. We paid for, and expected Jury trials. After 6 years, Justice Hunter and Justice Stewart were successful in denying our jury trials, and Justice Stewart “convinced” us to agree to Dismiss with Prejudice which we felt was under duress.
6. Two (2) years (emphasis own) after the enforcement action began, on August 9, 2012, the Court (Daigle. J) conducted a judicial settlement conference on the matter. Although the court record shows that the August 9, 2012 Hearing was for a “settlement conference,” we did not agree to, or request a “settlement conference.” We removed the alleged RV violation from District Court to Superior court because we expected and demanded, the facts of what the Town employees had done to us with this meritless lawsuit to come out in a public jury trial.
7. At the judicial settlement conference, the Town of Madawaska acknowledged that the Notice of Violation and original Land Use Citation and Complaint erroneously cited Richard and Ann Cayer for violations under a section of the Town of Madawaska Shoreland Zoning Ordinance that did not apply due to the fact that the Ordinance plainly defined travel trailers as “recreational vehicles” and not “residential dwelling units.”
8. DOCKET RECORD CARSC-CV-2012-00155 clearly shows, HEARING – SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE HELD ON 08-09-2012; AMENDED COMPLAINT BY 09/15/2012 by Judge Daigle.
9. At this point Justice E. Allen Hunter took over our RV case, ignored Judge Daigle’s decision that Count I did not apply to RV’s, and ignored Judge Daigle’s deadline for AMENDED COMPLAINT BY 09/15/2012. We assert that these, and further actions by Justice E. Allen Hunter, see: DOCKET RECORD, from this date until the dismissal with Prejudice, were nefarious, malicious, and intended to deny our right to a jury trial to defend ourselves.
10. After acknowledging their clear error, the Town of Madawaska was directed by Judge Daigle to file a Motion to amend its Land Use Citation and Complaint by 09/15/2012. However, because of Justice E. Allen Hunter’s actions, after two years (emphasis own), we were denied a jury trial, and the town attorney Richard Currier filed his amended complaint on November 13, 2012, without filing a motion or extension of time, fraudulently alleging a new and different Count II violation, based on the provisions of Section 15(D)(1) related to campgrounds. The Town of Madawaska did not provide Richard and Ann Cayer a new written notice of violation in accordance with the provisions of Section 16(H)(2) and (3) Legal Actions, relation to enforcement actions.
11. The town attorney Richard Currier willfully filed the fraudulent Count II complaint with full knowledge that (1) Richard and Ann Cayer were the landowners who corrected the alleged Count I violation. (2) We were the landowners, not the Violators. (3) There was no violation. (4) There had been no RV’s on the lot for over two (2) years. (emphasis own) (failure to state a claim.) And, (4) it could not be a campground as claimed by the CEO Bob Ouellet at the June 29, 2010 selectman meeting.
12. At the June 29, 2010 selectmen “meeting” (emphasis own), CEO Ouellet clearly said, “[C]ampground is two or more, so I figure this cannot be a campground….So that’s what I see and today I went to take a look again at the lot, today there’s only one. The little white one is there, the other brownish one is gone.” Attorney Richard Currier was at that June 29, 2010 selectman meeting sitting next to Richard and Ann Cayer, and clearly heard this statement by CEO Ouellet.
13. On 02/02/2013, almost six (6) months, after Judge Daigle allowed attorney Richard Currier to amend his complaint by 09/15/2012, Justice E. Allen Hunter granted Town of Madawaska it’s Amended pleading for Count II, that we had also created a campground.
14. This Material Fact, that the Town knew Count I and Count II were meritless, based on Judge Daigle’s August 9, 2012 settlement conference, and CEO Ouellet’s statement at the June 29, 2010 meeting when the CEO said, “[T]his cannot be a campground” should have been sufficient for Justice Hunter to question Currier’s unrelated amended complaint. Moreover, why wasn’t the material fact that the tenants were the ones who should have been cited as the violators, because it was their RV, and they parked it at the camp that they rented from us? And, because we were the landowners, M.R.Civ. P 80K clearly provides the landowners a copy of the violation.
15. Based on this Count II action by the Town employees, attorney Richard Currier, and Justice E. Allen Hunter’s granting of attorney Richard Currier amended Count II complaint, denying our due process rights, we filed our Special Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Title:14 M.R.S.A. §556 on 03/25/2013 to Superior court.
16. Judge Kevin Cuddy presided on our anti-SLAPP motion in Superior Court and allowed the Town of Madawaska to submit a Supplemental Reply on 09/12/2013, contrary to Title 14 M.R.S.A. §556. (All discovery proceedings are stayed upon the filing….The stay of discovery remains in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the special motion.)
17. Judge Kevin Cuddy entered his decision on 12/23/2013, nine (9) months (emphasis own) after the Anti-SLAPP was filed, DENIED the Motion, and based his decision on untimeliness, contrary to 14 M.R.S.A. §556. (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.)
18. [As an observation,] it is clear to me the Maine Supreme Court has “used” Justice Cuddy in the past, to “legislate” their own intent of the anti-SLAPP statute with precedent, [stare decisis.] The courts disdain for the anti-SLAPP law is obvious. (Ralph Nader v. Democratic Party Nov. 2010) decisions, [inter alia]. If this is not the case, why was our filing of the anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss decided by Justice Cuddy, when his delay was based on the fact that he was “traveling,” and was his reason for taking 9 months to respond? The intent of the law is clear. “[T]he Special motion may be advanced on the docket and receive priority over other cases when the court determines that the interest of justice so require.” Our Special Motion to Dismiss took 18 months to adjudicate. A Special Motion to Dismiss is usually decided in 30 to 60 days in California. Moreover, the intent of the Special Motion to Dismiss is to prevent frivolous lawsuits from wasting precious court time, and defendant’s unwarranted financial loss. Imagine, if Justice Cuddy and the Maine Supreme Court had acknowledged the clear fact that we were not the violators, and there was no RV violation, this could have ended within a few days after 03/25/2013. Since then we filed a secession case that went to the Law court; the Legislature illegally amended the secession statute. We filed the town’s failure to act for the secession petition with the Supreme Court, and appealed Justice Hunter’s decision to the Law Court. The town filed the meritless building violation lawsuit that was dismissed with prejudice in 2016 and we sued the town, etc. etc. etc. We also believe that when Justice Allen Hunter granted Count II for the RV violation, he intentionally ignored dispositive material facts that supported court actions for M.R.Civ P. Rule 11, Sanctions, against town attorney Richard Currier.
19. On January 22, 2014, we filed Aro-14-51 Special Motion to Dismiss to the Law Court.
20. Because the Supreme Court appeal was brought pursuant to the Anti-SLAPP statute, “Shelling v. Lindell. 2008 ME. 59,” the review was de novo. The dispositive material facts under review were extremally simple. 1. We were the landowners, not the alleged violators. 2. There was no violation. The Maine Supreme Court’s decision also shows its inexcusable bias against us, and is in plain view with Justice Alexander’s unsubstantiated false claims and opinions which are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law. The evidence is clear and convincing. The Town employees, Attorney’s Richard Currier, and Jon Plourde’s fraud on the court’s claims could not be defended by the town and its attorneys and ended with a dismissal with prejudice, that we opposed.
21. Justice Alexander issued the Supreme court decision on November 4, 2014, (9) nine months (emphasis own) later, denying our Special Motion to Dismiss based on many willful frauds on the courts claims, and repeated many willful fraudulent and defamatory claims by the Town of Madawaska and its attorneys Richard Currier and Jon Plourde in its decision. These defamatory claims are now Stare Decisis, repeated by Justice Alexander on the internet.
22. Following are just a few of the willful fraud on the Courts statements of material facts made under oath by the town employees, and its attorneys. (1) to a lot where one mobile home was already located. (2) As the Cayers had not submitted an application to the Town to allow the additional trailers, the CEO issued a notice of violation alerting them to their possible violation of section 15(A)(5) of the Madawaska Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. (3) After a June 29 HEARING before the Town Board of Selectmen. (4) during which the Board members heard TESTIMONY, (5) The activity alleged to constitute the violation involved placing SEVERAL travel trailer-camper units on a single lot. (6) The Defendants were notified of the PUBLIC HEARING regarding their violation. (7) After the issuance of the decisions, the Defendants never sought to appeal it to the Superior Court pursuant to M.R. Civ. P 80B see: Donald Paradis v. Town of Peru, May 7,2015. (Madawaska’s code is identical to town of Peru.) And, these fraudulent claims were repeated by Justice Alexander in his decision. (8) Municipalities suffer actual injury when their ordinances are not followed by their citizenry, (9) After giving Richard and Ann Cayer a full opportunity to participate in the proceeding. (10) The land use citation and complaint is[sic] meritorious.
23. Based on the willful fraud on the court claims by the Town employees and its attorneys, Justice Alexander wrote in his Decision, “[I]n ordinary circumstances such as those presented here” the anti-SLAPP statute cannot be invoked to thwart a local government enforcement action commenced to address the defendants’ alleged violations of law.” And, “[T]his is not such a case.” We sincerely believe there has never been a better case to invoke the anti-SLAPP statute since it became law in 1995.
24. Justice Alexander claims in [¶11] of his decision “[T]he Cayers contend that this language authorizes individuals to invoke the anti-SLAPP laws to obtain dismissal of State or local actions seeking to enforce laws with which the individuals disagree or do not wish to comply, particularly when, as here, the individuals have had prior disagreements with the State or local government seeking to enforce the law.” We can prove by clear and convincing evidence the opposite is true, because we owned the only campground in the Town of Madawaska, and we would have benefited with such an ordinance denying the right to allow RV’s on house and camp lots. Furthermore, At the June 29, 2010 board meeting, we did not argue about the interpretation of the ordinance; in fact I said “[I]f that’s the intent that we are not going to allow that anymore, all I can say is I apologize that I didn’t know, and, I will remove it as quickly as I can.” All RV’s continue to be allowed on all house and camp lots without permits, or questions to this day.
25. Moreover, twice in the past the selectmen defended the right for all property owners to place RV’s on house and camp lots. This is well documented in board meeting minutes. The decision by the Law court and the many other defamatory FALSE statements by Justice Alexander on the internet will forever, wrongfully embarrass, and ruin for life, Richard and Ann Cayer’s reputation, repeated as stare decisis, as it has already done.
26. After the Maine Supreme Court decision of November 4, 2014, the RV violation was scheduled for a trial Management Conference (jury trial) to take place on September 1, 2015.
27. Ten (10) months after the Supreme Court denied us the Special Motion to Dismiss on August 31, 2015, Town attorney Richard Currier filed a (1) REQUEST FOR PROTECTION ON TRIAL LIST with Justice Allen Hunter. He also filed (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial and proposed Order, (3) Plaintiff’s Witness List. We vehemently opposed the Motion to continue trial.
28. At the September 02, 2015 trial Management Conference with Justice Hunter, attorney Richard Currier requested to dismiss the RV Land Use violation. We refused because we wanted the facts and fraud on the Superior and Supreme Court claims for the RV violation by the Town employees, attorneys Richard Currier and Jon Plourde to come out in public. Attorney Currier then requested to Dismiss with Prejudice. We once again refused to Dismiss with Prejudice and demanded a Jury trial. Richard Currier then offered to work with us pursuant to the 2014 building violation and dismiss the RV violation with prejudice. We again refused and requested our Jury trial. Attorney Currier claimed that they would work with us with the building permit violation. Why are we waiting for a Supreme Court decision on the very same building permit? Maybe Justice Stewart who granted the Dismissal with Prejudice, can answer that question.
29. Justice Allen Hunter, who Granted Count II amendment for the RV violation GRANTED Plaintiff’s [Currier] MOTION TO CONTINUE without any valid reason over our objection. This denied and delayed justice for another year. (emphasis own)
30. Moreover, by denying our jury trial, Justice Hunter denied us our right to defend and expose Richard Currier’s illegal and fraudulent amended Count II complaint, and his [Hunter’s] illegal granting of Count II that caused years of hardship for us.
31. It was well understood that we were leaving for Florida at the end of October as we did every year. On 10/26/2015, four days after we left for Florida, the court issued a Hearing for a trial Management conference scheduled on 12/01/2015 with full knowledge that we had paid for and requested a jury trial that was only scheduled and available in September.
32. On 12/04/2015, the court (Hunter) recorded a response from our attorney, Luke Rossignol stated that he could not attend the trial management conference because of prior commitments, and neither could we, because we were in Florida for the winter.
33. On 12/04/2015, Justice Allen Hunter GRANTED a motion to continue, for Richard and Ann Cayer on 11/30/2015.
34. We believe that the actions by Justice E. Allen Hunter, for the trial management hearing notices of 10/26/2015 and 12/01/2015 to be willfully fraudulent, and intended to justify his granting of Curriers’ 09/01/2015 trial Management Conference, MOTION TO CONTINUE, that caused a year delay without any legal, or justifiable reason, by claiming that we also requested motions to continue and were not available for a (bench) trial.
35. We respectfully believe that we are entitled to request that both Justice Allen Hunter and Justice Harold Stewart recues themselves from our cases for these, and other reasons, which will be described further in this letter.
36. On August 4, 2016, Town attorney Richard Currier filed a second REQUEST FOR PROTECTION ON TRIAL LIST. *Note: This request for protection is not on the Docket Record!
37. On August 18, 2016, Town attorney Richard Currier served CEO Robert Ouellet a Witness Subpoena for Trial.
38. The following is a record of the building violation that was Dismissed with Prejudice by Justice Stewart. DOCKET RECORD No. CARSC-CV-2014-00082.
39. On May 29, 2012, June 18, 2012, and April 8, 2013 the Town CEO Ouellet (CEO) issued building permits to me, Richard Cayer, to expand and build a new camp to which much work, and expenses, over $45,000 was invested over a one-year period.
40. On June 4, 2013, the CEO sent us a notice of violation and Stop Work order without a Hearing, clearly in violation of our rights, pursuant to the SZO, 16 H. (3) Legal Actions, with clear knowledge that our permits were vested.
41. The CEO sent a letter advising us that the Selectboard would be discussing our alleged violation on September 3, 2013 in a regular selectmen meeting to which I responded in a letter on September 2, 2013 explaining the reason why I could not attend on that date. The Board ignored my letter, held their regular board meeting, and determined a violation, something they do not have a right to do.
42. On September 18, 2013, the Town Manager, notified us of the selectperson’s decisions with a $500.00 fine, and a consent agreement to be signed.
43. On April 22, 2014 my wife Ann and I were served a Land Use Violation.
44. On 06/11/2014, our attorney Luke Rossignol and I filed, a RESPONSIVE Pleading with Removal to Superior Court for a Jury trial, as we had done for the RV violation.
45. On 06/20/2014, we filed a Special Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Title 14, M.R.S.A. §556
46. On 06/26/2014, Justice Allen Hunter issued a scheduling order, “[O]rdered incorporated by reference at the specific direction of the Court,” with Discovery Deadline Entered on 02/26/2015, (emphasis own) causing us unnecessary delays and financial loss, clearly in contradiction with the legislative intent of Title 14, M.R.S.A. §556.
47. Justice Allen Hunter’s order included other filings not appropriate to a Title 14 M.R.S.A. §556 Special Motion to Dismiss such as, opposing memorandum filed on 07/14/2014, PLT’S OPPOSITION TO DEF’S SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS, PLT’S EXHIBITS 1-26; and, AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT OUELLET AND CHRISTINA THERRIEN. And,
48. Reply memorandum filed on 07/21/2014 Def’s reply to opposition to Special MTNTO [sic] DISMISS, and,
49. 09/18/2014 Hearing - Motion to Dismiss scheduled for 09/11/2014 and,
50. Motion to continue granted on 09/16/2014 Hearing MTN to Dismiss and,
51. Other filings – Opposing memorandum filed on 11/12/2014. PLT’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL MTN TO DISMISS. And,
52. HEARING – MOTION TO DISMISS HELD ON 03/26/2015. And,
53. On 04/09/2015, 10 months (emphasis own) after we filed the Special Motion to Dismiss on 06/20/2014, Justice Allen Hunter DENIED the Special Motion to Dismiss, after adding extraordinary and unnecessary legal cost, and delays, exactly the opposite of the Legislative intent of Title 14 M.R.S.A. §556. We believe this was intentionally done by Justice Hunter to harm us because we filed a Contempt of Court against the Town of Madawaska in 2009.
54. After all of these delays, Justice Allen Hunter intentionally failed/refused to allow our case to proceed to Jury trial as normally scheduled for the September Jury trial.
55. Moreover, on 12/28/2015 Justice Allen Hunter once again scheduled a TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FOR 02/02/2016 as he did with the RV violation, with the knowledge that, (1) there was no jury trial in February, (2) we would be in Florida at that time and would have to file a continuance. The material fact is that Justice Allen Hunter did this with the knowledge that we demanded and paid for a jury trial, and had a legal right to a jury trial. This “TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FOR 02/02/2016” was for a bench trial.
56. Our attorney again filed a motion to Continue on 01/11/2016 because the TMC/TRIAL was set for February 2016 while we were in Florida.
57. At the Hearing for the Trial Management Conference, Justice Hunter GRANTED the continuance on 01/14/2016. Because we believed what the court had done to us again by scheduling a Hearing for a Bench trial, we complained to our attorney and investigated with the clerk at the court house. The clerk got upset with us and told us to talk to our attorney. Our attorney got upset with us and said that we would harm his good standing with the court that he had built up over the years.
58. On 05/11/2016, Justice Allen Hunter scheduled another Hearing for 06/27/2016 with a notice to parties/counsel.
59. Upon our return from Florida in May we questioned our attorney about these TMC/TRIAL scheduled by Justice Hunter because we had been told and understood that Jury trials were only scheduled in September. After our investigations with the Clerk at the Caribou Court house, our attorney informed us that we could not request documents pursuant to Title1: § 401 et seq. because it would harm his “good will and standing with the court that he had built up over the years.”
60. On 06/20/2016, the court issued a notice, Hearing – Trial Management Conference continued on 06/20/2016. This time the court record showed, SHOULD BE JURY TRIAL.
61. On 07/26/2016, the court issued a notice, Hearing – Trial Management conference scheduled for 09/06/2016.
62. On 08/24/2016, the court issued a notice, party(s): INHABITANTS of TOWN OF MADAWASKA SUBPOENA – SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY FILED ON 08/18/2016. Robert Ouellet. (CEO)
63. At the 09/07/2016 TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE for CARSC-CV-00155 recreational vehicle (RV) hearing, a TMC was also scheduled for the CARSC-CV-2014-00082 building violation. Attorney Luke Rossignol and Richard Currier agreed, with a hand delivered letter to Diane Glidden, dated September 06, 2010, that read in part, “[P]lease note that no materials are being submitted for the case under Docket Number CARSC-CV-2014-082 because attorney Currier and I have agreed that it would not be appropriate to conduct trials of two enforcement matters against Mr. and Mrs. Cayer before the same jury pool. Based on that agreement, we expect that the 2014 case will be removed from the current trial list and placed on the next civil jury trial list with a different jury pool. As a result, attorney Currier and I agree that the parties need not submit materials for the 2014 case in connection with the September 6, 2016 Trial Management Conference.”
64. The building violation remained on the Docket for the September 6, 2016 Trial Management Conference.
65. At the 09/06/2016 TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, the Town of Madawaska’s attorney once again requested to dismiss with prejudice the RV violation and also offered to dismiss the building violation with prejudice even though it was not scheduled to be adjudicated. And, again we refused to allow the Town to Dismiss both cases with Prejudice.
66. Justice Harold Stewart II ordered us to come to his court room where we were told by Justice Stewart that this was a good offer; and if it does go to jury trial, no one knows what the outcome may be, among other things. At that point in time, we felt intimidated and threatened by Justice Stewart, and agreed to Dismiss with Prejudice under duress. Our attorney informed the court that we would file a tort claim against the Town and its employees.
67. On 09/06/2016, the Court finding -DISMISSED with PREJUDICE both cases, the building, CARSC-CV-2014-00082, and the RV, CARSC-CV-2012-00155, entered on 09/06/2016 and without cost to either party.
68. On 09/07/2016, the court issued a notice HEARING – TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD ON 09/06/2016 HAROLD STEWART, JUSTICE. ATTYS PRESENT: Richard Currier; Luke Rossignol; RSC ER – DEFENDANTS ACCEPT PLT’S OFFER TO DISMISS W/PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT COSTS.
69. On 09/07/2016, the court issued a notice; Party (s): Inhabitants of town of Madawaska, Richard Cayer, Ann Cayer FINDING – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ENTERED ON 09/06/2016. HAROLD STEWART JUSTICE AND WITHOUT COST TO EITHER PARTY.
70. On 08/24/2016, the court issued: FINDING – FINAL JUDGMENT CASE CLOSED ON 09/07/2016.
71. We assert, the town could only dismiss both Title 38 Shoreland Zoning violations if they were meritless because if there had actually been a violation, the town would be subject to Title 38 §443-A Cooperative Enforcement (3) Remedies. “[A]ny municipality that fails to adopt, administer or enforce zoning and land use ordinances as required under this article is subject to the enforcement procedures, equitable remedies and civil penalties set forth in sections 347-A to 349.”
72. Moreover, 16 I. Enforcement: (3) Legal Actions. Of the SZO clearly states, “[S]uch agreements shall not allow an illegal structure or use to continue unless there is clear and convincing evidence….and that the owner acted in bad faith,” or unless----will result in substantial environmental damage.
73. After this decision, I called the Colin Clark of the Department of Environmental Protection informing them of what had transpired with the Town and the Courts, and told them to bring an enforcement action against us if they believed there was any violations. No action has been taken against us from the DEP.
74. Because of the delays caused by the town’s meritless lawsuit and illegal stop work order, our vested permits had expired. We met with CEO Dube in his office the next day and asked that he allow us to continue with our building permits. He refused to give us any response. Our attorney then wrote him a letter with the same request, and again he did not respond. After we filed a Declaratory Judgement, the town attorney Ed Bearor responded with an email/letter by CEO Dube that basically said that we would have to start the permit process over again and may be required to move the building including many other impossible demands that attorney Bearor claimed with a ridiculous statement that the enclosed document was protected by 408, rules of evidence. We filed a Motion for Summary Judgement, which Justice Stewart handled with nefarious decisions that caused us much financial loss, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of our building. This case is now before the Maine Supreme Court with our brief that explains what Justice Stewart did concerning our vested permits and the Dismissal with Prejudice. After more than 7 years, our building is almost completely destroyed.
75. The town manager Ryan Pelletier stated in an email to the Saint John Valley (SJVT) times, on 4/11/2017, “[T]he court [sic] dismissed the code violation case with prejudice in September, at the request of the town. The ‘with prejudice’ condition means that the town may bring no further legal action against the Cayers for the original alleged code violations.” “It was a good faith effort to put the past behind and move forward for the betterment of the community.”
76. The SJVT continues, “[S]ince then, town and new code enforcement officer, Andrew Dube, have declined to reinstate the original building permit. The town has declined to approve the building project the Cayers want to complete, according to Dube.” The SJVT continues, “[H]e would be uncomfortable reissuing a permit that old and one that another CEO previously approved.” Note: Our permits were vested. Justice Stewart denied our Summary Judgement with questionable judicial actions. This case is now before the Maine Supreme Court. Enclosed is the document sent to us by email from CEO Dube.
77. The record shows the town’s employees, town attorneys, and Justice Harold Stewart’s actions in the dismissal with prejudice intended to continue to punish Ann and I by denying our right to continue with the vested building permits. SEE: ARO-19-97. These nefarious actions by the town’s employees, in concert with Justice Stewart are noteworthy examples why the general public have lost faith in our judicial system.
78. We believe the Town’s attorney will attempt to file a Motion for Summary Judgement in our tort case, based on the immunity of Government employees pursuant to Title 14 §8111, and either Justice Stewart or Justice Hunter will GRANT the Motion, once again denying us our right to a jury trial.
79. After the Dismissal with Prejudice on 08/24/2016, the court issued: FINDING – FINAL JUDGMENT CASE CLOSED ON 09/07/2016 and we filed a tort claim against the Town of Madawaska and its employees on 09/04/2018 pursuant to Title 14 Chapter 741: Tort Claims § 8101 et seq.
80. Although the scheduling order clearly started with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that SHALL, be completed within 120 days, pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 16B (a), this clear and unambiguous rule has been abandoned by both attorneys, and discovery/interrogatories have been determined to be a priority over ADR, in direct contradiction and intent to M.R.Civ.P. 16B (a) and (c).
81. Moreover, also contrary to M.R.Civ.P. 16B (d) (2) that fees and expenses for the neutral SHALL be apportioned and paid in equal shares by each party, (there are 7 parties). Justice Stewart, however, instructed that we pay 50% of the ADR cost and fees, contrary to the rule. Rather than cause more delays for ADR and unnecessary legal fees, we agreed to his terms with notice that we would oppose his ruling.
82. On May 09, 2019, our attorney L. Rossignol sent Justice Stewart an email telling him that “under the circumstances you will have to issue an Order under my request to resolve the dispute so I can move forward in scheduling the ADR conference/mediation with Ted Pierson.” Justice Stewart did just that, and although we agreed to attorney Wall’s request that we will pay 50% of the cost of ADR, Wall refuses to agree to the ADR, before, or during, his interrogatories, discovery, and depositions, contrary to the Rule 16(B)(c).
83. These intentional delays by everyone has caused us much pain and suffering, having to endure intentional delays that seem to once again indicate that we will not have our jury trial again this year.
84. At this time, we are in the Portland area waiting for my surgery that we believe was exacerbated by the stress related to these nefarious legal actions by the Town, its employees, its attorneys, and Justices. My wife Ann also has many stress related illnesses.
85. For these reasons, inter alia, we respectfully request that both justices recuse themselves, or, we are granted a change of venue so that we can defend ourselves this year, as we cannot long endure this stress, in order to clear our name by a jury of our peers, rather than by bias judges.