You disagree with the Budget... What would you do?

The budget touches all of us in the state. Is it fair that we ask those that work hard to pay more for services they may not be able to take advantage of? Is it fair to ask those that truly need help to say that we have to take away from them? In both cases the answer is no and yes at the same time. Maine is at a crossroads where the state cannot afford the entitlements and expenses that were funded in the past. At the same time it is unfair to ask those that are struggling to balance their family budgets for more and dig deeper. What is right? As a tax payer I fully expect to do my share to help make sure the state remains solvent. I am not thrilled with the idea of having even more of my paycheck taken away, but I know for the long term it is the right thing to do. I will sacrifice for the greater good. As I am making changes to my life so that others can be helped – I would also expect that those that are being helped by my labor will also reduce their dependence on the state. The burden should be carried by everyone.

There are many in state government that realize Maine has to do something. Governor LePage has submitted a budget and while it is not perfect he is trying to live within Maine's means. There are some hard choices that had to be made – right or wrong – but at least he is willing to put them out there. His opposition – and they are loud and vocal – have come down hard on LePage for what he is proposing. They are doing so without offering palatable solutions to the budgetary problems we are all facing. They are bringing nothing to the table and as a result they are playing it safe. Unwilling to suggest what will be hard to swallow for them it is easier to let others suggest ideas that will be controversial. Those that are taking the risk of working with the Governor should be commended for doing so. They are looking to the future of Maine and the long term goals we should have. RepubliCAN of Maine challenges those to come up with something – or shut up – because your hot air is doing nothing productive.

Judges in Maine are making Medical decisions

We are told that Judge Andre Janelle ordered a party into therapy, and on the first visit with the therapist, the client/ patient was asked what was the reason for seeking therapy.

The client reported saying that he/ she "was upset and disappointed with society". The therapist indicated that would not do, as it had to be a technical reason – such as depression or the sessions would not be paid for. The client stated that he/ she was glad to be divorcing, and not depressed, but the therapist continued to press the “depression” issue. The therapist had a struggle in trying to come up with a diagnostic category for this court ordered therapy. Finally the client told the therapist to put down whatever he/ she wanted. The client was never interviewed or counseled by the therapist for this diagnosis. There was no reason for the therapy other than Judge Janelle ordered it to be done. There was no depression experienced by the client/ patient. The “reason” was being fabricated for billing and court purposes, so a state (taxpayer - funded) agency would pay. It would also label the patient for the record as being depressed and this could be used in future court appearances against the patient/ client.

When Judge Andre Janelle forced this parent into “junk therapy” based on a Guardian ad litem “junk science” recommendation did he consider any of the following questions before forcing therapy:

1. Is the therapy really necessary?
2. Is there an accepted diagnosis of a problem for which therapy is indicated?
3. Is the treatment a valid, recognized form of treatment?
4. Is it approved of by professional societies?
5. In the end is it really effective therapy?
6. What us the aim of the Judge's prescription and can it be defined?
7. Will this therapy work on someone without a diagnosis?
8. Does this forced therapy have the potential of causing harm?
9. Is the treatment ethical? Or does it force treatment that humiliates with no definable therapeutic purpose?

Judge Andre Janelle probably also didn't consider some other very real issues like: Human Rights violations – where courts and their officers who are unqualified (both in training or background in diagnosis, counseling and or therapy) are forcing innocent people into unnecessary sessions. These therapies such as recommended by Judge Janelle appear to be methods of control and punishment and not of treating an actual problem. In this case as in many the judge forced the release of therapy records by the party. What ever good that may have come from the “therapy” was dissolved from that point on. The trust necessary for any form of therapy – which is founded on near absolute confidentiality – was broken with that request. Confidences are ended. No privacy = no therapy. Forcing the release of information to be shared with the opposing lawyers and their clients – can be damaging in unforeseen ways to not only the client but also those innocently mentioned in therapy. Will Judge Andre Janelle or the Guardian ad litem be held libel for possible damages? Will the lawyers, therapist or 3^rd party payers be held accountable? In the examples provided above – probably not as they either have immunity or deep pockets. It will come down to the person with the most to loose that will risk the cost of liability. This poses some interesting legal questions and issues.

The question that should be asked is why insurance companies and government health agencies – who are paying for this – are accepting this sham of forced therapy being prescribed by the likes of Judge Janelle? Do they realize what they are paying for? These Judicial/ Guardian ad litem prescriptions are frequently 'pro forma', and executed with little thought and no diagnosis but as a means of “Judicial Outsourcing” - about saving time for the judge in court that effecting any helping change in patients/ clients.

All third party payers - government (tax payer funded) or private - should have an interest in this set of issues; especially, if they are made aware of it. The money spent by these organizations is being wasted because of a Judicial recommendation that often has little or no bearing on a court case. Or is abused as a means of controlling a situation. The professional organizations, like the American Psychiatric Association have long had an interest, and have written volumes on the issues of confidentiality, informed consent, human rights - and the plethora of legal and ethical issues associated with these questions.

If you are or have been in a situation where the Guardian ad litem or the courts have ordered court sanctioned therapy please contact MeGALalert@gmail.com or like them on Facebook for up to date information on reform within the Judicial system and how you can help bring about change.

Fifth Amendment Rights are being Violated by Maine's Judges

“Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case be a witness against himself” These are one of the the lofty, important human rights guaranteed to all US citizens by our world famous Constitution. Yet in state after state these 5th Amendment citizen rights are being violated by family courts, the very institutions that are supposed to protect those rights. This has been going on unnoticed by many for some time and has almost become accepted as a regular way of doing business by the courts, Judges, lawyers, officers of the courts and uninformed consumers.

What Judges are condoning- whether directly or indirectly- are asking one or both people involved in a custody to sign over their rights to privacy in confidential, privileged transactions, without explaining how this confidential information will be used- for or against the party. In the example provided below, the judge has ordered the defendant to provide proof of not only the attendance of counseling, but to allow the counselor to speak with the Plaintiff on the Defendants progress.

Why is this a violation of the defendants 5th Amendment rights? There may be those who will say that the defendant has a choice. He/ she does not have to agree to follow the judge’s order. And this, in theory, would be true. In this case, however, the defendant was faced with the following:

1. He/ She was threatened with contempt of court and jail if he/ she did not comply

2. He/ She could agree with the release of information to his/ her ex and the courts without knowing how his therapy records might be used by the opposing attorney and the alienated spouse: in his favor, or against him, to argue that he/she was an unfit parent, should not have time with his/her child. He is being asked to risk testifying against himself, if his therapy records are released. Self-incrimination versus contempt of court and jail. Tough choices!

Although both choices are horrible and personally damaging, What would you do? In going to jail there is the potential of losing one’s job, having a jail record and the loss of income during jail time. These are all tangible concerns and fears. We know what the potential consequences are in going to jail.

On the other hand by agreeing to the release of information by the defendant there is no way of knowing in advance how that information is going to be used. It is impossible to give his/her “informed consent”, because it is impossible to know every possible or likely outcome of this action, and how it may affect your case. There is also no way to know that the information gained by the plaintiff and court will not be used as part of an attack by the plaintiff against the defendant. This is seen by many people as a sneaky, indirect way to get the defendant to testify against him/ herself. It is a violation of the defendants 5th Amendment rights, and it is all too frequently used by Judges that preside over family courts in custody disputes. It is also one of the many examples of how the Judicial process in family cases has corrupted itself. This process is in danger of becoming very ingrained in the system and it violates the constitutional 5th Amendment rights - to say nothing of common law principles about forcing consent.

The courts in the state are showing a lack of respect for the privileged, confidential information that is conveyed between the therapist and patient as an absolutely necessary part of therapy. In this case (as well as many others that we are aware of) under the threat of contempt of court, the defendant buckled and was forced into making a “release of information” decision that had ramifications that the Judge, plaintiff and most of all defendant had no way of knowing how it would play out. The Judge was in effect telling the defendant that he/ she would have to potentially testify against him/ her self – thus violating their rights under the constitution. The judge also unwittingly destroyed therapy by destroying the confidentiality necessary to make therapy work!

Please note - that this topic is not party specific. It affects people on both sides of the aisle and is very damaging. There currently is a movement in Maine that is trying to tackle Guardian ad litem reform that has gained National and International attention. The idea of fifth amendment rights that are being violated stem from this movement. For more information on Guardian ad litem reform we encourage you to visit: MeGALalert. 

Is the Republican Party Right Enough?

Or is it too Right?

There are some that are suggesting that Republican's in general and more specifically in Maine should be more conservative. That Republicans have lost the values that are at the core foundation of the party. In addition Republican's are at a crossroads in selecting a new leader for the party. Charlie Webster in stepping down has opened up possibilities.

There is a very real need for Republican’s to embrace the future and the influence of social media on the voter. If the Republican party is to survive and grow - young voters will need to be groomed and courted. The use of Facebook, Twitter, blogs, Tumbler and Linkedin to name a few as a means to get the candidates message out. Updating the websites maintained by various county committees so that they have a slick and professional look. The information on these sites all need to be current. There is no greater turn off than to have outdated information. If the most recent information you have is from a year ago then you have lost the battle. Media needs to be kept current and fresh. Emails that target constituents in a personal way as opposed to generic mass mailings. 

The Democrats manage to pull all of these points and more off. They have appealed to the old and young at heart. They get information out for support and do so weeks ahead of time. Not last minute. The Democrats market themselves as they party that cares and wants to help the individual, community, state or nation. Republicans have always been the party of change but recently the party has lost a bit of its groove.

If the party becomes more conservative as some would suggest there is the very real chance that moderate Republican's will defect. The goal should not be to narrow the focus of appeal but to broaden that appeal. To capture those that were lost in this past election cycle.

The Republican party is and always has been the party of aspiration. The Republicans are for the middle class and the upwardly mobile. It is the party of both blue and white collar workers, of race and creed. Conservative ideals and principles are good for every single voter.  We encourage you to comment on what the party should do. Comment here or email us at RepubliCANofMe@gmail.com.

Is this whats coming to America?

There is growing anger being displayed in Europe over austerity measures. People are upset with spending cuts by various governments and the threat of increased taxes.

There are budget crisis and governments no longer have the resources needed to cover the expenses associated with years of very generous entitlements. The protests that we are witnessing are coming about because many that will be impacted claim their livelihoods will be compromised by these changes. Unions are showing solidarity with the protesters - often encouraging them. They claim the protests are necessary to show the scale of opposition to these austerity measures. Governments are feeling the squeeze between what they know has to happen and what the protesters are demanding. There is not a lot of room to maneuver.

Is this what we can expect to happen here in America? Today we find ourselves on the edge of a cliff - teetering one way or another. Come January America will either fall over the cliff or get pulled back. In either case we as a country will find ourselves having to make some very unpleasant decisions. We run the very real risk of taking the path that Europe is going down. We cannot, though, continue upon the path that we find ourselves on. Raising taxes and cutting back so that we can live within our means is the only way to get us out of the hole we are slipping into.

There are going to be some very tough decisions that our leaders will be making. Decisions that will affect the entitlements that many in this country have become dependent upon. Pensions that can not be funded in the manner that they once were. There seems to be three options available to us:

1. Raise taxes on those that are still paying taxes. Do this across the board. There should not be any segment that gets a free ride. Raising taxes will in theory keep the entitlements that are out there and would cause the least harm to those receiving them.

2. Raise taxes and reduce entitlements. Do this across the board. As above no segment of society should get a free ride. Everyone will feel the pain.

3. Raise taxes, reduce entitlements and encourage job growth. The idea of getting more people on a payroll and paying taxes means in theory that taxes would not have to be raised as much and entitlements would not have to be reduced as much.

There are many ideas that could work - what is not working are the current ideas because it is only delaying what is inevitable - what we are seeing in Europe. If that is what this country wants then I suspect we will be seeing it soon. America is not like this - I hope

There is an image problem for the GOP – Grand Old Party – and that in itself is part of the problem.

Republicans took a hammering this past election across the board. We want your opinion on what worked – on the national, state and local levels. We also want to know what didn't work. Then finally what should change for Republicans – to appeal to more people. To convince those that are on the edge to look to conservative ideas and ideals.

The hammering that the party took ends with this election. We need to learn from what happened with this election so that it does not happen again. Republicans need to market themselves better. We want your thoughts.

Please comment here or email us at RepubliCANofME@gmail.com

There is a little over 1400 days until the next election.

Does District 94 candidate Terry Hayes have your interest at hand - or her own?

With this election it may be time for District Candidate 94 Terry Hayes to retire. It would appear that Terry has lost sight of who she works for – you and I. Instead as we have been finding out Terry Hayes has been working to promote the interest of her business and profession – that of Guardian ad litem.

For the past year there has been growing controversy over the management and oversight of Guardians ad litem. There have been two reports one in 2006 and the other this year that draws attention to this fact. Terry Hayes feels otherwise. Why shouldn't she – she has a business that caters to Guardians ad litem, she is a member of the Guardian ad litem Institute (a trade organization that promotes the interest of Guardians ad litem – which is often contrary to the child’s best interest) and in her position as the minority whip leader Terry has used her position to get any and all correspondence relating to Guardians ad litem.

Is this what Augusta needs? A candidate that shamelessly promotes her interest over those of her constituency. District 94 deserves to represented by someone who will look out for their interest. Tim Turner offers a fresh perspective for District 94 as a man with integrity and honor. Vote Terry Hayes out in District 94 this election cycle.