Wednesday, December 17, 2014

DivorceCorp and MeGALert - Conflicts of Interest Within the Sordid Divorce Industry

Part 2 of the interview between Directory Joe Sorge (DivorceCorp) and former psychiatrist and director of Maine Guardian ad Litem Alert, Jerry Collins. Part 2 exposes the conflicts of interest within the sordid Divorce Industry. Find out how the Judiciary in Maine handled the new law (LD 872 - An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine) which dared to spoil their insider dealings.

DivorceCorp - Family Law Report: Jerry Collins Interview Part2

DivorceCorp - Family Law Report: Jerry Collins Interview Part1

If you would like more information and become involved email us at or find us on Facebook.

Friday, December 12, 2014

Divorce Corp - Backdoor Deals and Cozy Relationships between GALs and Judges

Director Joe Sorge (DivorceCorp) interviews Maine psychiatrist and director of Maine Guardian Ad Litem Alert, Jerry Collins. They discuss the backdoor deals and cozy relationships between the guardian ad litems (GALs) and other family court professionals. Families are forced to pay outrageous fees and often get little for their money.

Learn how Guardians ad litem demand excessive fees and are essentially unregulated in their practice. It is another shocking example of the corrupt practices in US family courts.

DivorceCorp - Family Law Report: Jerry Collins Interview Part1

If you would like more information and become involved email us at or find us on Facebook.


DivorceCorp - Family Law Report: Jerry Collins Interview Part2

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Connecticut - I'm hoping that the four hours I spent in jail - may make a difference

Many thanks Jerry!  This has been a very important week here in this state in the area of family court reform.

In summary:

In 2009, I was forced under the threat of imprisonment to liquidate my sons' college funds to pay a corrupt GAL who did nothing to help my sons. $28,000 was paid to this GAL –  who did next to nothing.

In March of 2012, we had another incident where my ex-wife abused my sons, one of whom has autism - all of it captured on police station surveillance video. I approached the family court with this video and asking them to help me protect my sons - but I did not want my ex-wife to have no contact, because I didn't believe that was needed or that it would be beneficial to my sons.

A new GAL was assigned to my case, and she immediately demanded I seek full physical custody - which I explained to her would not help my sons, especially the one with autism, and was not needed. They needed to see their mother and I had no right to interfere with that relationship – I just wanted her to follow court orders and to be able to make decisions in their actual best interests. Upon hearing this, the GAL cut off all contact with me and ignored me, while continuing to completely ignore ongoing violations of court orders by the ex-wife and as she worked to cover up yet another incident of abuse of my sons.

This GAL billed $26,000 for spending less than three hours with my sons, which neither I nor my ex-wife could afford to pay. I already took out everything I could from my retirement to pay her and my attorneys. I found out recently that my ex-wife was forced to sign over the child support checks I gave her to this GAL - who has no children of her own and has never raised a child. She has never practiced family law. She is not even registered to do business in this state.

Last October, the court issued orders finding that I was right – that my ex abused my sons. And then without a required financial hearing, or any motion before the court asking it make changes, the judge doubled my child support, ordered I pay 2/3 of the GAL’s fees and $7,500 to my ex’s attorney.  In essence, financially rewarding my ex for abusing my sons.

In October, this GAL, without any prior compliant or notice, ran to court and demanded that the court order my ex and I to pay her everything we owed her, immediately. My ex worked out a sweetheart deal, because her attorney is also a GAL and a member of the AFCC. They garnished her wages at $50/week.

For me - the head of our state courts' "Family Commission" targeted me. The now FORMER GAL, who withdrew from our case, filed a Motion for Contempt, hired an attorney to threaten and harass me with jail if I didn’t pay, and issued a subpoena seeking all of my bank statements.

All of this was completely illegal, unconstitutional and without any basis in state law, regulation or the Practice Book. Because the now FORMER GAL, had no standing in my family case to file or do anything.

All of this fell on deaf ears as Judge Bozzuto worked to railroad me to jail as quickly as possible. All of our motions were ignored, the fact that we had two appeals that stayed everything, was ignored. Due process and the proper scheduling and hearing of motions, was ignored.

On November 21st, without me being present as I had to care for my sons, Judge Bozzuto walked into a hearing with orders already in hand. She came into the courtroom with hanging orders - she talked for SIX PAGES of the transcript without either counsel saying a word or having an opportunity to be heard. She made up “facts” and made comments about me that had no basis in any evidence before the court. She focused only on what I was bringing home and now the draconian costs the court imposed on me – which made it mathematically impossible to pay what was ordered and to care for my sons.

She issued a capias against me with a $9,600 purge, which no attorney who saw it could believe or ever saw before. I spent a night in a hotel room to avoid a marshal and being arrested and taken away in front of my sons and family.

After hiring a new attorney, we negotiated with the marshals to have me turn myself in this past Wednesday morning, and with a 60 Minutes camera crew filing the event. This so my sons would not be impacted, as on Wednesdays they go back to my mother.  Prior to this, we lived in constant fear that a marshal would knock on the door and take me away - leaving no one to be able to care for my sons, especially my son with autism.

On Wednesday morning, I was handcuffed and put in leg shackles. I was paraded into court in front of Judge Bozzuto, whose first words were her surprise and amazement that after two weeks I couldn't come up with the $9,600 purge amount.

My attorney fired back, and informed her that she had no legal standing or authority to have me incarcerated. As an expert in appeals, her forcefully cited state law and the Practice Book - illustrating that as we had two pending appeals, everything at the trial court level was automatically stayed, and what she did in allowing the contempt hearings to continue, was illegal.

After some very tense moments where she threatened the attorney, she said she wanted to review the case and continued it for the next day. She ordered me released - but there was even a moment where she left it unclear as to whether I was still incarcerated or not.

The next day, in front of news media, with 60 Minutes sitting in the courtroom, and many supportive parents and court watchers, she backed down. She agreed to wait until the Appeal's ruled on the appeals and "temporarily vacated" the capias against me.


What is before the Appeal's Court, for the very first time, is the question of whether the GAL's fees are attorney's fees or "in the nature of child support." If they are attorney's fees, I win and the GAL will have no option other than to go across the street and pursue her fees in civil court - where this belongs. If this is ruled as support payments, then I lose, and the question becomes why aren't the GALs payments added as part of the child support guidelines worksheet?

We also filed a federal lawsuit against the judge, the GAL and her attorney - citing violations of my Constitutional rights and state and federal debt collection laws.

I'm hoping that the four hours I spent in jail - may make a difference.

Peter Szymonik

Glastonbury, CT

The Court Documents relating to Peter Szymonik's case:

2013 -
2013-08-17 Invoice for Professional Services Rhonda Morra

2014 -
2014 Payment History of Rhonda Morra Guardian ad litem Bill
2014-10-17 Fax from Teller of Contempt
2014-11-14 Invoice for Professional Services Rhonda Morra
2014-11-21 Judge E Bozzuto Orders

Maine Guardian ad litem Alert (MeGALert) supports Peter in what he is trying to accomplish in Connecticut. Peter has been in the forefront of Family Court reform in that state. If you have been threatened by your Guardian ad litem we encourage you to contact us at of find us on Facebook.

Phone 207-370-9801 (open 24/7)

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Have you Suffered at the Whim of Judicial Discretion?

“Judging requires adherence to the constitution or statutory provision at hand.” Justice ElenaKagan, to Senate Judiciary Committee, 2010

The above quote from Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, says it all. Judges need to follow the law, like anyone else. Or... we would add, the law is in danger of becoming meaningless, with confusion and chaos reigning in the court room and “users” of the courts having no “true North” to follow. In its most favorable interpretation, judicial discretion may be considered an aspect of judicial independence, fitting a law to the actual situation at hand, but where there are clear constraints set down, they should be followed, or the court may be abusing its discretion and undermining the rule of law. Some law scholars claim that the absence of a jury in family courts, and therefore, absent a source of  “oversight” of judges  -  may enable an abuse of judicial discretion. “Judicial discretion”, when applied to the Maine Rules for Guardians ad litem, leads to confusion for users of these courts and huge bad feeling.  Do Rules for Guardians ad litem mean anything or not?  Does Judicial Discretion, when randomly ignoring or mis-applying Rules for Guardians ad litem, benefit anyone?  Does it not undermine confidence in the process and lead to suspicions of judicial corruption?

By reports “from the front”, we hear that many judges appear to have only a general knowledge of the Rules for Guardians ad litem.  Many Guardians ad litem, likewise, seem to have limited knowledge of their Rules.  But the users of Guardians ad litem services depend on these Rules for help in understanding the boundaries of permissible Guardians ad litem functioning in their case. It commonly happens that ‘Prose’ (and other) users of a Guardian ad litem's services know the Rules for Guardians ad litem better than the “Officers of the Court”!  But... to what end, if these officers, using “discretion”, throw Rules to the wind and run things on raw power? It is “because we are the mommie!” thinking.

The recent precedent-setting case, Dalton v. Dalton, raises troubling questions about the use of judicial discretion in family courts and how/whether the current Rules for Guardians ad litem are just words on paper? Or - whether - Rules be damned - Guardian ad litem activities may be any old thing - defended by ‘ad lib’ reasons. In effect, this places a Guardian ad litem's actions at the whim or caprice of the judge. To lay persons watching this performance, it suggests that the judge has historical powers - in an extreme form - of an absolute monarch. He may authorize a Guardian ad litem to do whatever he/she wants. Even more ominous in the Dalton case is the danger faced by the attorney who challenges this extremely broad Judicial Discretion. There is the risks of being in contempt of court. Truly, l’etat c’est moi! With unlimited discretion, a lawyer is reduced to the role of polite courtier or court flunky in this situation. A robust defense of a client is dangerous. A challenge of this “abused discretion” may result in serious sanctions (reprimand or loss of license).

A lawless Guardian who orders a mother out of her own home is acting with NO visible “Rule for Guardians ad litem” to back her. A Guardian who orders professionally unrecognized, “junk treatment”, scream therapy for a child has NO Rule to back her. These actions and others strike members of the public as being outrageous and way outside of the Rules for Guardians ad litem. Some would say that it is frank bullying, a gross abuse of power- and feel it is outside of the rule of law! But these actions (and more) were supported by the judge in the Dalton case. And... they - the Guardian ad litem and the Judge - were supported by the Maine Supreme Court in an appeal. The lawyer making the appeal was sternly condemned in the appeal decision. And faces possible sanctions from the Ba

Is the Court saying: A Guardian ad litem can do anything? Guardians ad litem are not required to follow their Rules? The Rules are just suggestions with absolutely no consequences whether they are followed or not? Is the court saying: the judge is an absolute monarch in his/her courtroom? Judicial discretion is the absolute, actual Rule?

It also appears that they are saying, “Woe betide any lawyer who dares to challenge this brand of judicial discretion in a family court?  Judicial Discretion as a ‘de facto’, idiosyncratic super Rules for Guardians ad litem” would appear to take precedence over any published Rules for Guardians ad litem on the Judicial Branch web site. One has to ask, what then are the Rules for? Are they a sort of bureaucratic “window dressing” for the benefit of the Legislature and the Executive Branches?

One also has to ask, is this sort of apparently, ‘ad lib’ rule-making by a judge in the best interest of families who use our courts, lawyers who work in them and for the well-being of Maine citizens, who want to trust and believe in  our courts!

We need a law that tells judges that if there are Rules for Guardians ad litem they cannot be dispensed with on the basis of “discretion”. They must be followed! Judges need to give a leadership example of respect for the written constraints set down.

Please contact us at if you have experienced Judicial Discretion. Or like us/ find us on Facebook for up to date information.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Should I Be Part of a Class Action Suit Against My Guardian ad litem?

Recently there was talk about doing a class action suit against a particular Guardian ad litem. Three years ago I would have been in favor of something like that. Today not so in light of all of the actions brought against Guardians ad litem in the state. In 10 years there have been numerous complaints filed against Guardians ad litem with the Head Judge (this does not even take into consideration the complaints filed at the lower court). Out of about 150 complaints initiated by consumers do you know how many were successful in correcting/ removing the Guardian ad litem


Well there were two removed by the courts because of mental health issues but those were not initiated by consumers (I stand corrected). As a consumer interested in filing a complaint at the highest level you would be better off investing in the lottery. You stand a far better chance of getting a result (any result) from the purchase of a lottery ticket than you would in court.

In three years little has been accomplished in courts - rolling the dice and playing by their rules. They (the courts and divorce industry) hold the cards. On the other hand there is no reason holding us back from playing with a different set of rules a different deck of cards. Think Different.......

 Find us on Facebook of email us at

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Family Court , 'Quo Vadis? "improvement, reform or implosion"?

As we observe the big picture of Maine’s Family Courts, we sense that  our family courts appear to be slowly imploding. It is not a visibly dramatic happening that grabs public attention. It is largely unnoticed and unrecognized symptoms of decay from within. This process of decline is unnoticed, except, perhaps, by those who pass through the family court experience , and many of these victims are so wounded by the experience that it is hard for them to view the experience in a larger perspective. It is frequently hard for all of the active players - judges, lawyers and users - to "see the woods for the trees"! Let us consider a few of the amazing "systems changes" that are progressing, unnoticed, and that are, like termites, silently eating the structure of family courts from within.

“THE "TERMITES":  From our perspective, serious structural damage to family courts is being caused by the seemingly inexorable growth of 'pro se'  (self) representation in family courts. This phenomenon is occurring, not just in Maine, but in every state in America. In Maine, the figure for 'pro se' representation in family courts is reported to be a startling 74% and growing. There is also the eye-popping figure of 86% of family court cases, which have only ONE lawyer. The figures for 'pro se' representation, we might add, are even higher in Connecticut and NY. One has to ask, what is the impact of this amazing growth of self-representation on the family court system, on normal, professionally guided and determined family court proceedings? What happens to a professional legal system, with long traditions and well-established protocols for inter-professional relations, with a focus on complex, human problem solving, When one of the two "players" in these contests is underrepresented and completely  ignorant of how to function in the well-structured, traditional setting? General systems theory would suggest chaos and profound, unprogrammed, unintended changes in the way the system functions. Well-intended attempts to patch the traditional 'status quo' models, further change the original system and bring with them further unintended consequences. The working system is not as it was - try as it may. Some call it broken. The ‘pro se’ “trend is not its friend”!

WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SYSTEM?: With the invasion of 'pro se' litigants in family courts, desperate, frightened people with no knowledge or skill in the law and its traditions, turn the courtroom into a scene of confusion, stress, emotional pain and misunderstanding. Judges struggle mightily with "judicial impartiality" in dealing with the 'pro se' litigant. To help, or not to help - and how to do so without unbalancing fairness and throwing impartiality to the winds. How can a judge - without guidelines or traditions for handling this invasion of amateurs - try to maintain a degree of balance and proportion in a situation in which the combatants/ competitors are so unevenly matched? The 'pro se' litigant is always anxious, frequently frightened (or terrified) by the utterly unfamiliar environment, by the task of hoping to rescue a beloved child and by the daunting tensions of the contest. It is a forced visit to a very "foreign country" with unfamiliar rules, language and procedures. How to cross examine, what are rules of evidence and, then, there are all too frequently the "objections" raised at every turn by an opposing lawyer. What do they mean to a 'pro se' litigant? How should they be handled by the litigant and/or by the judge? Can an "impartial" judge help a baffled 'pro se' litigant deal with “objections”? Some judges do try to offer help and to be kind without violating impartiality, but it poses serious challenges to all of the "players". There are also a number of very troubling reports that some judges are rude and vent frustration with the ineptitude of 'pro se' litigants. "Don't come back to this court unless you have a lawyer!" has been the dictum of several judges. We’d say, there is a crying need for data to measure the scope of the problems? Then, one can address the second issue: how does one correct this total systems problem?

We'd answer those judges, who resist dealing with the legally unrepresented, by saying that no one in their right mind would undertake the personal stress and misery of 'pro se', unless motivated by great love for their children and financial hardship! The 'pro se' situation is never a happy choice for anyone, and no one decides to go 'pro se' unless they are utterly desperate! There is also the important question of "outcome"? Who wins  in these uneven combat situations? No one has answers to this question, but we are inclined to say, "Three guesses and the first two don't count!”  However ... there is a crying need for actual data to move the conversation beyond anecdotes.

PRESERVING FAMILY COURTS FOR THE SHRINKING 26% WHO HAVE (MONEY) LAWYERS: Apart from the 74% 'pro se' litigants without lawyers, one should also consider the remaining 26% who have lawyers. One might in all honesty say that the expensive Maine family courts are being maintained for this affluent  minority and (more importantly) their lawyers. As an arena for a few lawyers (and the associated apparatus of consultants and GALs), the whole operation has become known by the public (countrywide), as the divorce industry. Should family courts and their whole expensive apparatus be maintained at public expense for a 26% minority of litigants and the juicy financial interests of  "the divorce bar"?

AS NEWS ABOUT THE 'PRO SE' DISASTER ESCAPES THE SYSTEM: In this age of the Internet, the public learns quickly about the unhappy state of affairs of 'pro se' litigants in family court. Paradoxically, in many cases, the public may well know more than members of the Judicial Branch who are tightly isolated from news of serious malfunctioning, cruelty. Bad management and unintended harm to children by omnipresent, "due process" concerns.  The public, in all likelihood, knows more about specific courts and specific judges and lawyers than does the Chief Justice. But... the bad stories, once out, cannot be controlled or suppressed. It causes severe damage to the credibility of the courts. The mechanisms of channeling public complaints about the distressing dysfunctions within the system are not user-friendly, are very expensive and in terms of corrective outcome ineffective. But the complaints and the "scandals" cannot be stopped by a protective system and an ineffective complaint protocol. They spread out like an Internet miasma from Ft Kent to Kittery, from Maine to California. They give the family courts and their entire operation a very black eye. It is very reminiscent of the recent scandals in another very closed system, the Catholic Church. Old methods and techniques of suppressing bad news, bad results and bad people don't work. The old system is badly broken and out of control, and the target symptom of this malaise can be seen most clearly in the 'pro se' situation.

HOW TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM - FROM WITHIN OR FROM WITHOUT? It is our strong impression that without some thoughtfully programmed intervention, a growing 'pro se' situation in family courts will lead to a massive major breakdown of these courts in concert with widespread, public, bad feeling spiraling out of control. It will be impossible to control this tsunami of bad handling of 'pro se' cases. As social media become increasingly aware, the courts will face increasing disrespect and a lack of public support. It is truly a simple question of "fix it, or it will fix you!" In our opinion, the usual Judicial Branch problem solvers, the "stake holders" are the wrong group to fix the problem. They are the 26% who benefit financially from the current  'status quo' of family courts. There is also the serious hard data problem. Nobody knows the full extent of the 'pro se' problem. It is impossible to formulate a fully rational, systemic, corrective intervention without data. Clearly, the definition of systemic data needs (and subsequent data collection and analysis) is not a task within the capability of a "stake holder's" committee.

We'd recommend a legislative audit of the 'pro se' problem, executed by a respected government agency with the capability of doing this. OPEGA comes to mind. The aim is not to embarrass or cause pain to anyone. It is to obtain an objective analysis of the 'pro se' system and to suggest  comprehensive systemic corrections. With sponsorship from all three branches of government, it would be to the credit of all to face a terrible problem with courage and intelligence.

For more information about what we are doing to change the Family Court system find us on Facebook or email us at

Thursday, November 6, 2014

New Rules for Guardians ad litem versus or ... Judicial Discretion.

We are sure that the 78 page document spelling out a set of new Rules for Maine Guardians ad litem represents many hours of work on the part of some Judicial Branch Committee. However, to this reader, they are a very perplexing document. Exactly what are they supposed to be? Are they a job description? Are they some sort of regulations aimed at governing and bounding the work related actions of Guardians ad litem in divorce and custody (and protective) cases? Are they a set of voluntary guidelines to be followed if the GAL wishes? Are they well intentioned (but empty) ideals? What are they? It is far from clear.

Any set of Rules on paper may look fine, but their value and meaning  come from whether they are enforced or not- and how. For these new Rules there  appears to be no enforcement. There appears to be no consequences of any kind for not following them. There is no designated entity responsible for oversight to see if the Rules are being followed. There is nothing we can see, except for the reporting of complaints by the ‘pro se’ public. This complaint process itself is a confusing procedure guaranteed to fail. To this reader the message in the new rules seems to be: "it would be nice if Guardians ad litem learned these Rules and tried to follow them. But if they don't, not to worry. There are no consequences.

The complaint procedure speaks loud and clear to these issues. For family courts in which 74% of litigants are 'pro se', the complaint protocol spelled out in the new Rules is frankly unusable. It's complexity, its lack of instruction about "how to", its legalistic posture, its insistence on "innocent until proven guilty" even in cases needing only minor corrective action, its extreme concern about due process, makes it bullet proof against any public complaint. It also has no use as a management tool, a heads up from a member of the public that is simply aiming to improve GAL quality in cases of less serious malfunctioning. We guess that the court feels that GALs don’t need management? GALs all over Maine can heave a sigh of relief. Courts can breath easier. The complaint procedure won't be used, or, if it is used by an unaware 'pro se' litigant they won’t succeed in penetrating its airtight defenses.

For the time being, Guardians ad litem will be able to escape any consequences of  ‘pro se’ public complaints, but please don’t think that this will make the  GAL problems go away. They will just fester, suppurate, expand and grow larger.  Sooner or later the GAL malfunctioning problems will be uncontainable and a public scandal will burst through!

The "Catch 22" about the proposed new Rules (or the current ones) is that their courtroom enforcement appears to be totally a matter of judicial discretion. They can be discarded, amended or altered if a judge- quite independently of any rules - decides to order GAL actions not covered by the Rules for Maine GALs, or ... to ignore flagrant violations.  a piece of this problem- in our experience- is that many judges and many GALs lack specific, detailed knowledge of the GAL Rules and have only a "general idea" about Rules for GALs.  "Judicial discretion" seems to allow for creative use of the Rules in any which way.

To many of us, the recent Maine Supreme Court appeal, the Dalton vs Dalton case, appears to tell litigants that even a well-documented carefully reasoned exposition of what looks like a gross abuse of current GAL Rules by the GAL and documentation of a similar situation by the  judge  risks a "contempt of court" complaint.  It also risks "hand signals'  to the Overseers of the Bar to open a 'sua sponte' complaint against the lawyer who dared to document the problems.  The implications of this series of actions seem clear to us: any lawyer who robustly defends a client faced with dysfunctional judicial or GAL behavior is in extreme professional danger. DON'T DO IT!

The answer to correcting the dysfunctions in GALs and judges seems to be to bury the problem, until the weight of scandal and and corruption from within cannot be suppressed. A massive public cry of outrage and a demand  for action ensue.  The fairly recent scandals in the Catholic Church come to mind as an example. Suppression only works for a shorter and shorter period in the age of the Internet.

In our interest for reform, we are tempted to say to the Judicial Branch, "Do nothing.  Let your unenforced Rules and your unusable complaint procedures stand exactly as they are.  In the long run, they have within their carefully crafted attempts to control and suppress the truth (at a time when the Internet dictates that “you can run, but can’t hide”), the inevitable roots of a huge scandal, forced change and reform.  We're just not there yet!

There should be an easier way for all.

We shall overcome.  ... someday!

Please contact us at for more information.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Lawyers, Divorce Industry Like Mike - Should You?

We try to stay clear of partisan politics. After all, children's welfare in divorce and custody shouldn't be a partisan issue. So we try to remain "non-partisan",

BUT ...

Quite frankly, from the perspective of our Family Court, and Guardian ad litem (GAL) reform concerns, we "Don't like Mike" - that is Mike Michaud, one of ( 3 ) candidates running for Governor of Maine. In fact we would say to our GAL and Family Court reform friends, "Vote for anyone else for Governor, but not Mike!"

It's nothing personal, Mike, its your "special interest" lawyer friends, supporters and the fundraisers who we don't like! It is Maine's divorce industry that is "hell bent for election," divorce bar lawyers raising money for "Mike" like it is going out of style and the other, so - called "impartial" divorce industry people silently cheering for "Mike". They are hoping that he wins and that his gratitude for their support will preserve the very lucrative 'status quo' in our creaky, old, dysfunctional, Family Courts.

ASK YOURSELF - WHY DOES THE DIVORCE INDUSTRY SO AVIDLY SUPPORT MIKE MICHAUD? Why are lawyers, law firms and the judicial branch supporting Mike? The financial investment they are making in Mike Michaud is an investment in keeping the family court as we know it. It is an investment in their retirements, their children's education and their way of life.

Take a look at some of Mikes supporters:

Michael Asen Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped fund raise for Mike on several occasions - 07/25/2014; 08/11/2014; 08/14/2014;

Michael Asen Esq has also been quoted by the Portland Press Herald as saying “My highest priority is making sure we don’t have another four years of this governor.” in an August 12, 2014 posting and referring to Gov. Paul LePage. Remember Gov. Paul LePage signed the Dutremble bill LD 872 "An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine" which the Judicial Branch hated as did lawyers and Guardians ad litem. Michael Asen Esq is also the chair of fund raising for Maine lawyers who like "Mike".

Diane Dusini Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped raise money for Mike on at least one occasion - 08/11/2014. It should be noted that is also the President of the Maine Bar.

Stephanie Cotsirilos - former Wall Street Lawyer - has helped raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.

Robert Gips Esq (DrummondWoodsun) has helped raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.

Neil Jamieson Esq (Prescott Jamieson Nelson & Murphy) has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 07/21/2014; 08/11/2014.

Brett D. Baber Esq (Lanham Blackwell & Baber) has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.

Janis B. Cohen Esq. has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.

Elizabeth Scheffee Esq. (Givertz Scheffee & Lavoie, PA) has helped raised money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.

Richard S. Berne Esq. (Law Office of Richard Berne) - is helping Mike Michaud with campaign contributions - 08/11/2014.

WHY DO THEY LIKE "MIKE"?  You can bet that it isn't just out of the goodness of their hearts, and it isn't because the divorce bar wants our kind of Family Court or Guardian ad litem reform.  They expect that "Mike's" "pay back" for their financial bucks will be strong support for the "divorce bar".  Keep lawyer privilege!  Keep our family courts as they are - a gold mine for lawyers and the Divorce Industry. Keep consumers out of this unregulated "industry".  "Mike" has a political  reputation for being an obedient,  good, ol boy. The divorce bar and their good friend, Senate President Justin Alfond ( 07/21/2014; 08/11/2014; 09/23/2014 ), are banking on a tight relationship with "Mike". Alfond is reported to have already told Senators in his caucus, enough already with GAL reform; the lawyers don't like it!

WE'D BET THAT MANY WITHIN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH ARE ALSO SILENTLY SUPPORTING  "MIKE" TOO (and not just their "prayers and good wishes"!). He is their kind of guy; supporting the interests of the "divorce industry" and will not supporting Family Court or GAL reform - just exactly as they are.

DO YOU SUPPORT THE "DIVORCE INDUSTRY"? A vote for "Mike" supports the divorce industry and perpetuates our victim-hood in Family Courts. Use you precious vote thoughtfully, carefully and in the best interest of our children. Your vote can make a difference. Please, friends, anyone but "Mike" for Governor of Maine, please!

We'd also say, check out where our candidates for the Maine Senate and House of Representatives stand on our reform issues. We're splitting our vote on these candidates depending on whether they support our family court and GAL reform positions. For us, it's not about Republican or Democrat; we call ourselves "Childocrats"!


MeGALert is a grassroots organization and like minded people who have a vested interest in the states Family Court process and reform. Please feel free to contact us at or find us on Facebook.