Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
State of Maine v Gina Turcotte Objection and Imperative Judicial Notice

State of Maine v Gina Turcotte Objection and Imperative Judicial Notice

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10 |Likes:
Published by GinAthena
STATE OF MAINE v GINA TURCOTTE

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION and IMPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOTICE

AUGSC-CR-2012-286
STATE OF MAINE v GINA TURCOTTE

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION and IMPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOTICE

AUGSC-CR-2012-286

More info:

Published by: GinAthena on Jun 02, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/02/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
OBJECTION AND IMPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOTICE
 
Page 1 of 2
 
STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, ss DOCKET NO. AUGSC-CR-2012-286 STATE OF MAINE * PLAINTIFF * v * GINA TURCOTTE * DEFENDANT * NOW COMES GINA TURCOTTE, sui juris, all rights expressly and irrevocably reserved,
incorporates DEFENDANT’s Notice of Non 
-Opposition filed on May 16, 2014 as if set forth fully herein 
, and gives this court imperative judicial notice that DEFENDANT OBJECTS to HAROLD HAINKE receiving payment for any legal services rendered for this case, for the following reasons: 1.
 
In June 2012, Harold Hainke clearly expressed his disbelief in
DEFENDANT’s
legal strategy by stating,
“GinA 
, you will NOT get these charges dismissed in Superior Court. You will need to appeal your case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States if you want any
 justice.” 
 2.
 
On December 18, 2013, Harold Hainke said,
“GinA, I don’t know how you did
it but you did it! You got all the charges
dismissed!” 
 3.
 
 Throughout this entire case history, Harold Hainke has declared that he
“is not my attorney” 
 and has no obligation to protect my rights. 4.
 
Despite Harold Hainke repeatedly denying any attorney-client status, he has repeatedly sent and accepted written communications and knowingly communicated with the court, Joelle Pratt and other parties about this case expressly failing in all his legal duties. 5.
 
Harold Hainke’s legal role has been de minimus having had no imp
act on the
current “dismissed” status.
 6.
 
Harold Hainke has used a frivolous excuse to attempt to withdraw from this case since nothing more will happen until December 16, 2014. 7.
 
DEFENDANT does not need Harold Hainke
’s
deleterious inept counsel.
 
OBJECTION AND IMPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOTICE

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->