COURT ISSUES

CERT. MAIL # 7006 2150 0005 2595 1253
November 4, 2009
James T. Glessner, State Court Administrator
Administrative Office of the Courts
P.O. Box 4820
Portland, ME 04112-4820
RE: Criminal Complaint against Judge Christine Foster, Biddeford District Court
Dear Mr. Glessner,
Pursuant to Title 4, Chapter 1 § 17, your duties as State Court Administrator include, but are not limited to, the study of operation, condition of business, practice and procedure of the Judicial Department; making recommendations for the efficient administration of justice; examinations of the status of dockets of all courts so as to determine cases and other judicial business that have been unduly delayed; investigating complaints with respect to the operation of the courts.
Pursuant to Title 4: Judiciary, Chapter 1 § 1 administrative responsibilities of the court and the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice, as the head of the judicial branch, shall, in accordance with the rules, regulations and orders of the Supreme Judicial Court, be responsible for the efficient operation of the judicial branch and for the expeditious dispatch of litigation therein and for the proper conduct of business in all courts and the prompt and proper administration of justice.
Pursuant to Title 4: Judiciary, Chapter 13 § 568. Duties of clerks as to records; All clerks of courts shall receive and safely keep all such records and papers lodged in their offices.
For years Judge Christine Foster has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. Her conduct has been inconsistent with constitutional requirements, statutes, rules of court, decisional law, and common sense and non-compliant with the Code of judicial and ethical conduct. Her continuous pattern of improper activity, breach of duty, intentional harm upon litigants and misrepresentation of the judicial system is official oppression and racketeering. MAINE LAW DEFINING ’OFFICIAL OPPRESSION’: “A person is guilty of official oppression if, being a public servant and acting with the intention to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office, or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.”

Criminal conduct has become a regular way of conducting business in her court, as well as in the York County Superior Court, and constitutes “racketering activity” per RICO. Judge Foster's pattern of racketeering activity over a period of several years, in concert with others, her acts of extortion, obstruction of justice, conspiracy of rights, deprivations of rights and tampering with court records are crimes within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. and RICO. It is a crime to steal property through abuse of office. Another attempt is being made to steal a fourth piece of property from me in Judge Foster's court. She, in concert with others - including Judges and higher courts – have used their public offices to conspire, extort, defraud and obstruct justice to achieve an intended goal. Extortion under color of official right occurs when an agent of the government uses his or her legitimate governmental powers to obtain an illegitimate objective. The courts are being used as a racketeering enterprise to deprive litigants, with open-ended continuity extending indefinitely into the future, and commands a full investigation into the courts management and operations. Tampering with court files and dockets are commonplace in the court. The mail fraud statutes have been violated to advance a scheme to defraud.
Judge Christine Foster is in violation of the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 1; 2(a)(b); 3(A)(B)(1)(2)(5)(7)(8), (C)(1), E(1), (2)(a)(b)(c)(d)(iv).
On July 9, 2009 I filed a Motion for Relief From Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) on grounds of Void Judgment and Motion for Recusal of Judge Christine Foster from presiding over any issues involving me. This case pertains to property and a contract between two people, one deceased. With the death of the defendant, the right sought to be enforced survives onto the surviving plaintiff.
On July 28, 2009 an order was issued directing me to file a fee of $60 within 7 days or the court would dismiss my motion without further hearing. I timely paid the $60 fee and have been denied access to the court. This is extortion.
On September 23, 2009 I filed a Motion for Directed Verdict, judgment as a matter of law, attached as Exhibit “A”.
On October 27, 2009 I filed a Motion to Compel Entry of Judgment for Directed Verdict by the Clerk, since 30 days had passed and the court failed to enter judgment, attached as Exhibit “B”.
On November 3, 2009 I received a denial of my Motion for Directed Verdict by Judge Foster, attached as Exhibit “C”. Judge Foster entered a denial, dated October 26, 2009, one day before my filing for judgment by the clerk. She had more than 30 days to act on my motion. It is my belief that this denial was predated due to my filing with the clerk. On November 3rd I went to the District Court to check the docketing of the Clerk's entry of Judgment for Directed Verdict. I learned that it had not been entered on the docket. I asked to speak with the head clerk. She had gone to lunch and I was given a time to return in which to speak with the clerk. When I returned to the court, Nancy LaFontaine (2nd in command) told me that the head clerk was not available, but purportedly did relay my questions to her, as I waited. LaFontaine refused to release this clerk's name. I requested to LaFontaine that she give me a date for hearing before the judge. LaFontaine refused stating that such requests must be in writing. I stated that I had filed previous motions for show cause hearings in the court and they had all been ignored.
I requested a certified copy the docket sheet on this case (BID 91-DV-23). I learned from Clerk LaFontaine that “a docket sheet was unavailable for this type of case.” I pursued a certified copy, which is needed for an appeal or whatever action may be taken, and was given Exhibit “D” as the docket sheet. This is totally unacceptable. Clerk LaFontaine notarized this document stating “Docket record unavailable for this case type.” Upon questioning the incomprehensible exhibit “D” documents, Clerk LaFontaine gave me “Exhibit E”. The failure of the clerk to safely maintain court records is a violation of Title 4: Judiciary, Chapter 13 § 568, Duties of clerks as to records, constitutes tampering with public records, solidifies my claim of aiding and abetting and demands that criminal charges also be pursued against the clerk(s).
On November 10, 2009 I filed an Objection with Motion to Vacate Denial of Entry of Judgment for Directed Verdict on grounds of 1)Abuse of Discretion, 2) Official Oppression, 3) Obstruction of Justice, 4) Fraud and 5) Void Order, attached as “Exhibit F”.
Judge Christine Foster had no authority to issue any order as I motioned for her recusal for many legitimate reasons.
Pattern of activity relative to this case:
On August 15, 2008 correspondence was sent to Matthew Pollack, Clerk of the Maine Supreme Court. Pursuant to M.R.SA. Title 4 § 120 Justice of the Superior Court to sit in District Court, I requested the order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to assign Superior Court Justice Robert Crowley to sit in the Biddeford District Court in order to finish an issue in the above named case, which he had presided over as a Judge of the District Court and which remained unresolved after his confirmation to the Superior Court, attached as Exhibit “G”.
On November 17, 2008 a response from Mr. Pollack, Clerk of the Maine Supreme Court was sent to me stating that the Chief Justice cannot order Judge Crowley to hear my case (this contradicts and violates M.R.SA. Title 4 § 120), attached as Exhibit “H”.
On December 5, 2008 a response from Thomas Humphrey, Chief Justice, Superior Court was sent to me stating that due to “the trial courts experiencing a significant lack of judicial resources”, he declined to authorize his cross-assignment to the above named case, attached as Exhibit “I”.
The “lack of judicial resources” is not the reason for declining to uphold what State law mandates. Judge Humphrey is shielding Judge Crowley's involvement in this case where the pattern of racketeering began, in concert with opposing counsel. Criminal conduct became a regular way of conducting business in his court. His unlawful conduct commenced the racketeering activity. Additionally, I learned that Judge Crowley held a (fraudulent) foreclosure hearing upon my business property, in concert with bankers/attorney and without notice to me which resulted in the unlawful confiscation of my property and deprived me of my livelihood. I was denied my right to defend against bank fraud perpetrated against me.
Regarding Judge Humphrey and his refusal to authorize cross-assignment, he is in a direct conflict with me as he participated in a fraudulent foreclosure of my home. His order was issued in a court which lacked jurisdiction; my demand for change of venue and trial by jury were taken under advisement, however, Judge Humphrey issued an order in favor of a fraudulent foreclosure; no trial was held and my counterclaim was never acted upon. He has participated in the same pattern of activity as Judge Crowley and Judge Christine Foster, all resulting in the theft of property. This continued pattern of activity has found its way into the York County Superior Court as well.
March 6, 2009, my response to Judge Humphrey's December 5, 2009 correspondence, attached as Exhibit “J”. Judge Humphrey forwarded my letter to Ms. Laura O'Hanlon, Counsel for the Supreme Judicial Court.
Submitted as additional evidence to you is Case # BID-03-CV-179 involving the theft of my home through the concerted efforts of individuals, city officials and the courts. Attached hereto as “Exhibit “K” is a subpoena for my appearance in Judge Foster's court on 9/13/05 in an attempt to extort $35,000 from me. Certification of my attendance in court on 9/13/05, attached as “Exhibit L”. After all of the cases were called, I asked the clerk why this case had not been called. The clerk couldn't find the file, no one in the clerk's office could find the file. I explained the subpoena against me and the clerk had the party come to the clerk's window. The party played dumb, didn't understand or know anything about the subpoena that he had signed! He thought his Property Manager might have a copy of the subpoena, went to speak with him and was to return to the clerk. When he did not return, the clerk paged the party to come back to the clerk's window, but the party (and 2 other people) fled the courthouse. This is yet another example of the tampering with public records! To note, the Property Manager lives in MY home!
Issue of Appeals:
The issue of appeals now comes into play. It is fruitless to appeal to the Maine Supreme Court, as not one of the many cases filed has ever been granted, despite the crystal clear evidence of triable issues; gross violations of law, violations of procedural due process, malfeasance of office, judicial oppression, discrimination through abuse of judicial power, and tampering with court records in the lower courts. The Maine Supreme Court has continually upheld lower court decisions which violated both State and Federal constitutional law including, but not limited to, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and 1964. In 2008, the Justice Department announced an agreement with administrative officials of the Maine judiciary which resolved an investigation of a complaint alleging that the Maine judicial branch, which receives federal funding, was not in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. However, under the terms of the agreement, the Justice Department will monitor Maine’s compliance for a period of two years. Maine courts are not in compliance with Federal law and continue to accept federal funding.
The matters affecting the administration of the Judicial Department are not in compliance with 4 M.R.S.A. as defined above. It is time for a probe of judicial misconduct within the Maine judicial system. It is useless to file appeals in the Maine Supreme Court until there is a total cleansing of the judicial system.
I request an immediate hearing with you to present additional evidence of the operation, condition of business, practice and procedure of the courts/court personnel in York County and a demand for investigation with respect to the operation of these courts. I sincerely hope this matter can be resolved in Maine. If within 10 days from receipt of this correspondence, there is no response from you, I will have no choice but to pursue this matter further.

I appreciate your cooperation and look forward to your immediate response.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Lafortune P.O. Box 187 Biddeford, Maine 04005
Enc.(s) 12