I filed the 3 motions below about the completed case yesterday. Using the ADA in this manner is likely unprecedented. Telling me my argument was without merit did not benefit me. Telling me why it was without merit could benefit me. Having another ticket based on the same statute gives me serious leverage. I do not understand the statute so the court needs to allow me to understand the new charge or this case proves I do not understand the same charge brought against me once again. Case law proving that I do not understand a new charge against me creates a serious problem for the court. Yes, this approach will likely **** off the justice who reads it but I already lost so what difference can an unhappy justice make at this point?
I (NAME)present this ADA motion to the law court regarding (CASE NUMBER) determined on (DATE)2017. Reply address: (ADDRESS).
Title II of the A.D.A. in 28 CFR section 35 mandates that I receive clear and effective communications from which I can benefit. I need to effectively be told the reasons behind the courts decision. As an ADA request I ask to be told why my positions were “without merit” as that informs me of nothing. My learning disabilities as recognized under the A.D.A. require clear and effective communications to provide me a benefit as required by 28 CFR section 35. I need to be clearly told the reason for my loss in the appeal decision. I need to be able to understand the issues. Not being told “why” I lost in a meaningful way that I could understand after the original trial was a large part of why I appealed.
1 What basis did the court use to declare that articles III and IV of Maine’s constitution are without merit when determining which government branch must write the rules of court? I do not understand.
2.How could a charge be upheld that includes a “pickup truck” that did not have a registered weight on a current registration as required per legal definition? When I do not use my dodge ram primarily to carry property how could it be a truck per legal definition? How does improper registration not apply? How did Smith v Hawthorne not overturn Anton etc. decided previously? How does a registration fee schedule pointing to 29-A §504 have anything to do with an improper vehicle type being declared on a registration certificate? The issue raised was the §101 type not the §504 fee schedule. Does the court realize that commercial plates require a signature while pickup plates do not?
3. I need to have explained under the A.D.A. what I did not understand about 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 as I have received another ticket based on the same statute. As it is now when the judge asks if I understand the charge against me I must say no. Will this court enlighten me on what I did not understand about the statutes that I may properly understand them or must my next trial be stopped by my not understanding the statute?
4. Federal ADA law requires that I receive clear and effective language from which I can receive a benefit. Your decision left me even more confused about what 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 means after the appeal. As I have another 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 charge against me I must ask this court to explain what I do not understand about it.
5. A detailed analysis explaining how I misunderstood 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 is needed. If I do not receive that analysis before it comes time for the new trial when I go to court the judge will ask me if I understand the charge. If I do not get a meaningful reply to this request I will be forced to respond… “No sir, the Maine supreme judicial court has declared that I do not understand the charge against me. As that court refused to tell me how and why I do not understand the charge I can not understand the charge sir. I only know that I do not understand the charge because the court told me I do not understand the charge. Not knowing why I do not understand the charge makes it impossible for the presiding judge to help me to understand the charge because I have no idea why I do not understand the charge sir. If the law court had told me why I did not understand the charge against me I might have been able to understand it but because I never received a meaningful response from the law court I am clueless as to what I do not understand and why I do not understand it. Judge, would you please contact the law court to have them explain what I do not understand as they would not explain it to me?”
Will the MSJ court avoid the necessity for the above conversation in district court by having 29-A M.R.S.A. §351 (1) and (6) with §101 legal definitions applied clearly explained to me according to this decision so that I may understand the charge? I do not wish to have to use this case law as precedent showing that I do not understand the §351 charge that is once more filed against me.
I (NAME)present this ADA motion to the law court regarding (CASE NUMBER) determined on (DATE)2017. Reply address: (ADDRESS).
I missed finding Arnheiter. Based on this newly found evidence I present the following for consideration leading to a change of decision about trial by jury for a traffic infraction civil suit.
Arnheiter stated “We ruled precisely to the contrary in State v. Anton, 463 A.2d 703 (Me.1983), and we find no reason to depart from that authoritative precedent.”
If the reasons for Anton not applying were missed by the court that completely missed the important parts involved I will explain some reasons to depart from Anton below.
1. The City of Portland v Depaolo case reversed the standard used to decide Anton. Moving the burden of proof for a civil trial by jury from the defendant to the state after Anton was overturned is the Maine Constitutional reason the court seems unable to comprehend. I previously erroneously believed that justices had honor and integrity. A decision based on a faulty foundation that has been subsequently removed and declared to be null and void is without merit.
2. Not committing perjury by your oath of office to uphold Maine's constitution, remaining within the Maine Constitution while not committing treason or sedition, applying the constitution to a wrongly decided case, and your desire not to continue perpetuating a fraud are all strong reasons for men and women of honor and integrity to depart from a case that was directly overruled without naming it 4 years later in 1987 by Depaolo. Only those who live without honor and integrity and/or that suffer from extreme mental illness or serious mental disability would fail to see these compelling reasons.
3. It is important for the people to have court justices that do not practice sedition and treason against the written will of the people of Maine put forth in Maine's Constitution.
4. Perhaps the biggest reason to follow Maine's Constitution as written is when the constitution of Maine is not applied precisely as it is literally written and was voted on the state steps outside of its corporate charter and then ceases to have any legal existence. The constitution was either fraudulently written and presented when put up to by the free white men who read it exactly as written and so voted to agree to the constitution exactly as written without exception meaning exactly what it says. If the constitution was presented based on fraud it is without merit. If the constitution does not mean what it says when it was voted on its adoption was based on fraud in the inducement. It therefore can have no merit or legal cognizance.
When the state does not abide by the written will of the people as shown in the constitution by providing those protections guaranteed by the constitution the state violates its duty and releases the people from their duty of allegiance and thus obedience to any law, regulation, or anything the state requires.
Luria v. United States, 231 US 9 - Supreme Court 1913
“Citizenship is membership in a political society and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. “
When I do not get compensation from the state which includes the protection of a trial by jury for a civil suit known as a traffic infraction and Maine ignores the protection that must be given to me by rules of court written by the legislative branch as they would be more understandable as reciprocal obligations then I can owe Maine no allegiance or obedience. When the contract is violated upon which membership in a political society is based by the party with more apparent power that contract ceases to have any authority or application to the other members with less apparent power. A contract which includes a constitutional corporate charter contract binds all or none. Once the corporation violates that charter it ceases to exist.
I (NAME)present this ADA motion to the law court regarding (CASE NUMBER) determined on (DATE)2017. Reply address:
The court did not respond to the due process violations raised. I need answers to those issues.
1. Can a judge remove the right to object for an entire trial by saying to a learning disabled man who is very literal based on a non-verbal learning disability that he can “speak later” which makes him wait to speak as required to object until the judge grants permission to speak again?
2. Can a man be forced to be part of a trial when he does not understand how a trial is supposed to work? The judge by presenting everything all at once at the beginning of a trial results in mental overload that results with no understanding.
3. When no evidence is provided at trial proving that registration requirements exist and apply how can due process be met?
I do not believe I was given fair notice of what was required by statute as the Supreme court said is required. My use not being primarily to carry property left me outside the statute. I came across new information in cases shown below.
Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 US 156 - Supreme Court 1972; This ordinance [or STATUTE] is void for vagueness, both in the sense that it "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute," United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 617, and because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242.
Living under a rule of law entails various suppositions, one of which is that "[all persons] are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 453. The poor among us, the minorities, the average house-holder are not alerted to the regulatory schemes and we assume they would have no understanding of their meaning and impact if they read them.
The state did not command registration when my dodge ram would not be used primarily used to carry property. How is that lack of notice not a due process violation? How does not meeting the legal definition of “pickup truck”, an important element of the charge not a due process violation? I believe federal courts will not agree based on supreme court decisions.
Screws v. United States, 325 US 91 - Supreme Court 1945; If a statute does not satisfy the due-process requirement of giving decent advance notice of what it is which, if happening,an opportunity to avoid the happening (see International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634; United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445), then "willfully" bringing to pass such an undefined and too uncertain event cannot make it sufficiently definite and ascertainable.
Certainly these considerations of vagueness imply unconstitutionality of the Act.
State v. Chappell, 149 Ohio Misc. 2d 80 - Ohio: Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Court 2008; it is reasonable that a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear."  McBoyle v. United States (1931), 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (Holmes, J.). Put another way, "[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty[,] or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids."
 Lanzetta v. New Jersey (1939), 306 U.S. 451, 453, 59 S.Ct. 618, 83 L.Ed. 888, citing Champlin Refining Co. v. Corp. Comm. of State of Oklahoma (1932), 286 U.S. 210, 242, 243, 52 S.Ct. 559, 76 L.Ed. 1062, 86 A.L.R. 403; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co. (1927), 274 U.S. 445, 458, 47 S.Ct. 681, 71 L.Ed. 1146, Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co (1926), 269 U.S. 385, 391-393, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 128, 70 L.Ed. 322, A.B. Small Co. v. Am. Sugar Refining Co. (1925), 267 U.S. 233, 239, 45 S.Ct. 295, 297, 69 L.Ed. 589, United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. (1921), 255 U.S. 81, 89-92, 41 S.Ct. 298, 300, 65 L.Ed. 516, Collins v. Kentucky (1914), 234 U.S. 634, 34 S.Ct. 924, 58 L.Ed. 1510, and Internatl. Harvester Co. v. Kentucky (1914), 234 U.S. 216, 221-223, 34 S.Ct. 853, 854, 855, 58 L.Ed. 1284.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.
Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.
Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied