JUDICIAL NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

STATE OF MAINEKENNEBEC, ssDOCKET NO. AUGSC-CR-2012-286

STATE OF MAINE*PLAINTIFF*JUDICIAL NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TOHAROLD HAINKEs MOTION TO WITHDRAW

v*GINA TURCOTTE*DEFENDANT*

NOW COMES GINA TURCOTTE, sui juris, all rights expressly and irrevocably reserved, and gives this court judicial notice that DEFENDANT does not oppose HAROLD HAINKEs Motion to Withdraw as a privately contracted, state-paid stand-by legal counsel, for the following reasons:1. Harold Hainke has alleged and is presumed to be a practiced attorney having full knowledge and understanding of court, evidentiary, and appellate rules which he was contracted to convey to DEFENDANT to ensure a lawful trial.2. Harold Hainke has proven himself to be legally incompetent, nunc pro tunc.3. Harold Hainke has refused to participate in DEFENDANTs constitutionally lawful strategy which secured full dismissals of seven illegal criminal charges.4. Harold Hainke clearly expressed his disbelief in DEFENDANTs legal strategy in June 2012 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.5. Harold Hainke has repeatedly, knowingly and willfully breached a carefully constructed Legal Services Agreement (contract), as follows:a. Paragraph 2 states, Ms. Turcottedid not want an attorney to act on her behalf, but wanted an attorney to be available to advise her as to court procedures and render other legal advice. This arrangement is referred to as stand-by counsel.b. Paragraph 3 states, Gina L. Turcotte will act as her own attorney and have all the duties and responsibilities of an attorneyincluding communicating with the Court, the District Attorney and any other persons,making objections to the District Attorneys presentation of evidence and responding to the District Attorneys objections to her presentation of evidenceShe will make all the decisions concerning her case, including the legal strategy to pursue.c. Paragraph 4 states, Mr. Hainke will not have the traditional responsibilities concerning the allocation of authority between Attorney and Client and the scope of his representation will be limited to the duties of stand-by counselMr. Hainke shall assist Ms. Turcotte with the presentation of her case and be available to render legal advice upon her request.d. Paragraph 5 states, which was deliberately included by DEFENDANT, Therefore, Mr. Hainke will not communicate with any party in this matter unless Gina L. Turcotte is present and has expressly given Mr. Hainke authority to offer counsel.e. The Legal Services Agreement does not give Harold Hainke any right to receive nor to submit any official legal documentation to or from the court or any other party on DEFENDANTs behalf.f. The Legal Services Agreement ends with a proclamation, WE HAVE EACH READ THE ABOVE AGREEMENT BEFORE SIGNING IT.g. Both Harold Hainke, Esq. and Gina L. Turcotte personally signed the Legal Services Agreement in each others presence after discussing and agreeing on its explicit terms on June 5, 2012.h. During a meeting in February 2013 between DEFENDANT and District Attorney Maeghan Maloney, Harold Hainke tried coercing DEFENDANT into pleading guilty to two bogus criminal charges despite evidence of her innocence and the States persistent violations of due process.i. The end result of that plea agreement was a conviction for Refusal to Submit to Arrest despite being charged without legal or factual merits.j. During a motion hearing before Judge Marden on December 4, 2013, DEFENDANT demanded a dismissal of all charges for the States utter contempt for and violation of due process, the rules of court procedure, rules of exculpatory evidence, and basic maxims of constitutional law.k. Judge Marden denied DEFENDANTs 3rd Motion to Dismiss setting trial by jury for December 18, 2013 without any supporting evidence.l. DEFENDANT properly and immediately appealed Judge Mardens illegal decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and gave proper written notice to this court, Joelle Pratt and Harold Hainke of the appeal.m. This record shows the court, Joelle Pratt and Harold Hainke all had proper notice that a proper appeal was filed on December 5, 2013.n. MRAppP Rule 3(b) unambiguously states, The trial court shall take no further action pending disposition of the appeal by the Law Courto. During an off-the-record informal conversation with Harold Hainke on December 18, 2013 prior to trial, Joelle Pratt withdrew Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 due to lack of credible witnesses and supporting evidence.p. Joelle Pratt further corroborated the absurdity of Count 2 by offering to dismiss that charge on December 17, 2014 if DEFENDANT plead guilty to Count 2 on that day, December 18, 2013 under deferred disposition.q. Joelle Pratt is liable for violating DEFENDANTs due process rights. r. On December 18, 2013, DEFENDANT expressly restated her innocence on the record declaring several constitutional and due process abuses.s. Harold Hainke knowingly and willfully conspired with Michaela Murphy and Joelle Pratt to violate the Maine Constitution and court rules by accepting a guilty plea from DEFENDANT while an appeal was pending.t. DEFENDANT innocently agreed vis compulsiva to plead guilty under deferred disposition unaware Michaela Murphy, Joelle Pratt and Harold Hainke had conspired to violate court rules to wrongly oppress her.u. DEFENDANT has always fully intended to use the December 18, 2013 recorded hearing as prima facie evidence of fraud and corruption.v. DEFENDANTs innocence was reaffirmed on December 18, 2013 when Joelle Pratt and this court ordered dismissal of Count 2 on December 17, 2014 without further taxing or penalizing DEFENDANT.w. On December 18, 2013, Harold Hainke said, GinA, I dont know how you did it but you did it! You got all the charges dismissed!x. Throughout this entire case history, Harold Hainke has declared that he is not my attorney and has no obligation to protect my rights.y. Despite Harold Hainke repeatedly denying any attorney-client status, he has repeatedly sent and accepted written communications from the court and knowingly communicated with the court, Joelle Pratt and other parties about this case expressly failing in all his legal duties.z. Harold Hainkes legal role has been de minimus having had no impact on the current dismissed status.6. Harold Hainke has stated, Being threatened by Ms. Turcotte makes it unreasonably difficult for me to continue to be available to consult with her.7. DEFENDANT disclaims making threats to anyone reaffirming and reiterating her intention to pursue all proper remedies for all constitutional violations.8. The allegations cited above are not all-inclusive and are subject to change.

WHEREFORE, DEFENDANT hereby nullifies her contract with Harold Hainke, nunc pro tunc, and releases him from all future legal duties to DEFENDANT as written in their Legal Services Agreement.

FURTHERMORE, DEFENDANT expressly prohibits Harold Hainke from having any further discussions about this case with this court, the PLAINTIFF, Joelle Pratt and any other party.

Signed in Augusta, Maine on this 14th day of May, 2014.

In Peace,

GINA TURCOTTE32 COURT ST APT 1AUGUSTA, MAINE

The attached document was served upon all parties by hand delivering a copy to the court, the District Attorneys office and Harold Hainkes office in Augusta on this day.

Signed in Augusta, Maine on this 14th day of May, 2014.

In Peace,

GINA TURCOTTE32 COURT ST APT 1AUGUSTA, MAINEJUDICIAL NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITIONPage 1 of 5