Skip to main content


  • ElkArte - Just Installed!

Topic: Conflict between state and Federal constitution (Read 45 times) previous topic - next topic

  • Diego Cordero
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Conflict between state and Federal constitution

In 2017 Maine's Supreme Court in State v Chase violated the U.S. Constitutions equal protection and due process clauses.

They currently apply 2 irreconcilable standards to Me. Const. Art. 1 Section 20. For traffic tickets trial by jury is denied until we can prove a similar trial had a jury in 1819 before Maine left Massachusetts. Trial by jury is mandated for other civil suits unless the state proves a similar trial was denied a jury in 1819. We can not tolerate this unequal treatment by Maine's Courts. We can not allow justices to violate their oath of office and the US Constitution.

If justice exists in Maine all 7 Justices must be impeached for refusing to apply the U.S. Constitutions equal protection requirements.

Here are the details.

The Maine Supreme judicial Court has demonstrated that the foundation used in State v. Anton was overturned which thereby overturned and invalidated that entire case as shown by: Godin v. Schencks, 629 F. 3d 79 - Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit 2010, In re Shane T., 544 A. 2d 1295 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 1988, N. SCH. CONGREGATE HOUSING v. Merrithew, 558 A. 2d 1189 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 1989, Smith v. Hawthorne, 2006 ME 19 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 2006, City of Portland v. DePaolo, 531 A. 2d 669 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 1987.

That does not matter as shown in:

State v. Chase, 2017 ME 43 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 2017
[¶5] Chase challenges the court's denial of his request for a jury trial in this traffic matter as a violation of Me. Const. art I, § 20, which provides that, "n all civil suits, . . . the parties shall have a right to a trial by jury, except in cases where it has heretofore been otherwise practiced." We have held that neither the Maine Constitution, nor any other authority, requires that a jury trial be available in a traffic matter. State v. Nugent, 2002 ME 111, ¶ 3, 801 A.2d 1001 ("[T]here is no civil jury trial right for traffic infraction proceedings afforded by article I, section 20 of the Maine Constitution . . . ."); State v. Arnheiter, 598 A.2d 1183, 1185-86 (Me. 1991); State v. Anton, 463 A.2d 703, 708-09 (Me. 1983); see M.R. Civ. P. 80F (setting out the procedure for traffic proceedings, and providing for only a nonjury trial in the District Court). Indeed, pursuant to 29-A M.R.S. § 103(2) (2016), "There is no right to trial by jury for a traffic infraction." Thus, the court did not err by denying Chase's jury trial request  Angry

I can see no legal justification for having 2 completely opposite ways of applying the same Constitutional article. This must be a violation of equal protection and due process as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Is there really any hope left when the states highest Court violates it duty to apply both the State of Maine Constitution and the U.S. constitution?
The only problem with the world is that the idiots are cocksure and intelligent are doubtful.