P. 1
Gina Turcotte v Humane Society Waterville Area - Imperative Judicial Notice

Gina Turcotte v Humane Society Waterville Area - Imperative Judicial Notice

|Views: 26|Likes:
Published by GinAthena
GINA TURCOTTE v HUMANE SOCIETY WATERVILLE AREA

KEN-14-52

IMPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOTICE
GINA TURCOTTE v HUMANE SOCIETY WATERVILLE AREA

KEN-14-52

IMPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOTICE

More info:

Published by: GinAthena on Jun 01, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

01/04/2015

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

IMPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOTICE ~ FOAA Page 1 of 2
IMPERATIVE
JUDICIAL
NOTICE

DOCKET NO. KEN-14-52

STATE OF MAINE
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
SITTING AS THE LAW COURT

GINA TURCOTTE *
Appellant *
v *
HUMANE SOCIETY WATERVILLE AREA *
Appellee *

NOW COMES Appellant who acknowledges Appellee’s May 27, 2014 letter to this
court indicating Appellee will not be filing a reply brief and will not participate in any
oral arguments due to HUMANE SOCIETY’S alleged financial disability.
Appellant brings to this court’s attention and gives imperative judicial notice that
Maine Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(d), Effect of Failure to Deny, stipulates, in part,
“Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required…are admitted
when not denied...”
Appellee’s May 27
th
letter indicates, “The Humane Society…must apply its modest
resources judiciously. Unfortunately, at this time the Humane Society’s assets are at a
historic low …and…finds itself unable to afford the legal expenses involved in defending
Justice Murphy’s dismissal of Ms. Turcotte’s Freedom of Access Act complaint.”
Despite Appellee’s alleged financial disability to defend this action, their silence
is their acquiescence to all Appellant’s claims as mandated by Rule 8(d).
As this court has historically maintained, “The standard of review for a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is well settled. The
motion must be decided based solely on the allegations in the Appellant's complaint.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). The court does not decide disputed issues of fact; instead, it
must assume that all material facts in the Appellant's complaint are true. Tellabs, Inc.
v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007). Not only must the court accept the
Appellant's allegations as true, but it also must accept as true all reasonable factual
inferences drawn from Appellant's allegations. See Kowal v. MCI Comm'ns Corp., 16
F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir 1994); Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C. Cir.
1970).”
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

IMPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOTICE ~ FOAA Page 2 of 2
Appellee states in their 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, pg 1 ¶2, "A complaint is
properly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when it is
beyond doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that might be
proven in support of the claim." Richardson v. Winthrop School Department, 983 A.2d
400 (Me. 2009).
Appellee further states, on pg 4 ¶2, "the court has no authority under the Freedom
of Access Act to compel a private corporation to divulge private information, confidential
records, or trade secrets"; but again, these are not the true facts of this instant case.
When this court reviews the record, it will be clear that Appellee’s failure to
respond is not the result of their financial difficulties, but due to an inability to
sufficiently rebut the facts, evidence and law, nunc pro tunc.
It will become abundantly clear that Appellee is in fact a public entity.
Appellee states in the May 27
th
letter, “The Humane Society has already spent
thousands of dollars…defending Ms. Turcotte’s initial civil action…not to mention her
current…complaint and…an Unfair Trade Practices Act complaint…”
Appellee could have avoided all lawsuits by strictly complying with Maine
Revised Statutes when Appellant called them on September 17, 2012 to report her
missing service animal.
If Appellee had maintained proper records and followed all procedures as
required by law, they would have reunified Appellant with her service animal on
November 12, 2012 and avoided every legal action brought against them by Appellant,
past, current and future.
WHEREFORE, Appellant trusts this honorable Court will enter lawful opinions
in favor of Appellant with a judicial precedent that Appellee is subject to the FOAA.

DATED: June 2, 2014 ___________________________________________
GINA TURCOTTE
32 COURT STREET APT 1
AUGUSTA, MAINE
(207) 333-0628

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)//-->