Roll Call

Important Notice Regarding Membership Dues

Notice From MAP President Steve Webster

Dear MAP Member,                                                                                                                                                   December 19th, 2011

At our December 14th board meeting, the board voted unanimously to authorize a membership-wide dues increase from $7.00 per week per member to $8.00 per week per member. I wanted to take a moment to explain the need for such an increase and reinforce what MAP provides in exchange for your dues.

You should know that every effort is made to minimize costs, but some factors are beyond our control. Our legal costs have increased considerably in recent years. That is not because the law firm is charging us more; they have simply been doing more work. The economic situation had led many associations to negotiate a one year contract with hopes of better financial news in the future. It costs just as much to negotiate for a one year contract as it does for a three year contract.

We have also had our fair share of IA investigations, mediations, arbitrations, and other personnel related issues that have cost thousands of dollars. Much thought and consideration is put into these issues before they are taken to the next level. The battles we chose to fight need to be fought on behalf of the affected member and the association as a whole.

Your local unit may charge extra for dues in order to have extra monies in a local account, but it is important to remember that MAP dues will only be $8.00 per week. That is extremely cheap money for what is similar to an insurance policy that you receive. I firmly believe that the services that are offered for $8.00 per week are unrivaled by any other organization similar to ours.

You receive assistance with contract negotiations, assisted throughout your local grievance process up through arbitration, and you will have an attorney by your side rather quickly if you are ever involved in a critical incident. There have unfortunately been too many of those this year involving our members and our executive director as well as our attorneys have traveled across the state at all hours to represent members in need.

None of us on the board wanted to raise dues, and it should be noted that this is the first dues increase in approximately six years. We could always take measures to cut costs and prevent dues increases, such as no longer supplying the street reference guides, having our annual awards banquet or subsidizing police week in DC, and the wreath laying ceremony in Arlington. If we do this, we will be like every other labor organization seeking to operate on a profit business model, but that is not what MAP has ever been about.

While it is troubling that we had to slightly increase the dues beginning in March of 2012, I wanted you all to know that MAP is financially stable and we intend to remain that way. We constantly look for ways to save money, but eventually we must come face to face with our economic realities. We want to remain vibrant and effective; this increase will allow us to be both.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this correspondence. I wish you all a great holiday season, and may you and your families remain safe.

Respectfully,

Steve Webster

MAP President

You can also download a copy of this letter to post for your local by downloading it HERE

Maine Emerald Society Announces Open Process for Annual Scholarship

The Maine Police Emerald Society Kevin Riordan Presidential Scholarship is given in honor of the

Society’s President, Kevin Riordan. The Scholarship is funded by the family of Daniel F. Cashman, who

had been a long time supporter of the Law Enforcement community. He is succeeded by his three sons,

all of whom are serving in the Law Enforcement field from the Municipal to Federal levels. The Maine

Police Emerald Society will select one student to award the scholarship to annually. The scholarship will

go to a student currently in a post-secondary education program who aspires to join the field of Law

Enforcement upon graduation, or a high school senior who plans to move on to the next level of

education in a Law Enforcement related program of study. Eligibility criteria will be based on academic

records, leadership responsibilities in both community and school activities, and a clearly written essay of

academic and career goals. The scholarship will be given in the amount of $500 before the start of the fall

semester. It may be used towards tuition, books, personal computer, or on-campus room and board. The

scholarship must be used within 12 months of the date the recipient is notified. Proof of registration in a

vocational/trade school or accredited college is mandatory before payment is made.

Click Here for a Complete Announcement with Requirements and Application

MAP Appoints Current Appeals Committee 

In March 2008, the full board of directors enacted a change to the MAP state by laws to provide for a standing member committee on appeals. The purpose of this change was to provide a more efficient and timely process for members to appeal decisions of the executive board as it relates to grievances and or arbitrations. The new by laws are reflected in Section VIII, "Grievances", Subsection "C" of the MAP State by laws to read:

C.    An appeals committee shall be formed, represented by five (5) member associations, with two (2) alternates, to hear appeals of executive board decisions. Executive Board members will not participate on the committee and hearings of the committee will be called as needed by the executive director, or the president with at least 5 days advance notice to all parties. Determinations by the committee shall be final and representative of the full board of directors.

Under MAP's old bylaws, members would have to wait until either the next scheduled full board meeting or for a special full board meeting to be called. The issue that arose was that none of MAP's units' grievance procedures would not allow for that length of time to pass in the process without a mutual extension, which is not mandatory. By creating this committee on appeals, all MAP members will have the ability to have a timely hearing on their issues concerning executive board decisions without affecting their local units contractually outlined grievance process.

The executive board is pleased to announce the following MAP Members as representatives to the first appeals committee;

Maine Association of Police Standing Committee on Appeals

Paul Fenton; Cape Elizabeth Police Benevolent Association

Ken Foss; Saco Police Patrol Association

Bryan LeTarte; Portland Police Benevolent Association

Eric Small; Sanford Police Association

Myron Warner; Bangor Police Patrol Association

ALTERNATES

Owen Davis; York Police Association

Gino Bianchini; Freeport police Association

MAP is grateful to the members who have agreed to participate on this committee as it will provide for a invaluable service to all MAP's members. If any MAP member has an interest in serving on the committee, please submit your name to executive Director Paul Gaspar at map75@maine.rr.com and you name will be added to a waiting list should vacancies occur.

MAP Sponsors Forum on Maine Public Employees Retirement System

On Tuesday, October 28th from 9AM to Noon, the Maine Association of Police hosted a free presentation and forum with Stephanie Fecteau, PLD (Participating Local District) Plan Administrator for MPERS; formerly known as the Maine State Retirement System. Ms. Fecteau came to discuss changes that MPERS and their plans have undergone, specific issues encountered by local units and fielded questions from the audience. The comprehensive presentation was well received by the 23 representatives from the local MAP units and included a extremely helpful PowerPoint presentation. If you were not able to attend, or missed the presentation, the PowerPoint presentation is available to you directly by download from the website. You can access the presentation below (You will need Microsoft Powerpoint to view this file):

 MAP MPERS Presentation PwrPnt

To View as a PDF File:

MAP MPERS Presentation PDF

MAP Announces Production of "The Voice"

To provide another benefit for our members, the Maine Association of Police has produced the first issue of a new quarterly newsletter. Entitled, "The Voice", this newsletter will serve as a new medium of communication throughout the membership; to include labor news, legal information, and member/local news. Available only electronically as a PDF file, members can also download issues right here at the MAP website. If you would like to start receiving The Voice, please contact the map office with your name and email address at map75@verizon.net or at 207-767-2558.

The Voice; Vol. 1, Issue 1, September, 2008

The Voice; Vol. 1, Issue 2, December, 2008

Join and Support The Maine Police Emerald Society

"Chun Cosaint Augus Freastal"

(To Protect and Serve)

Mission Statement

The mission of the society is to develop a spirit of brotherhood and fellowship
amongst its members as well as to promote  police professionalism amongst
Gaelic/American law enforcement officers.

In 2002 several Gaelic-American Law Enforcement personnel in Maine gathered with the goal of forming a society and
fraternal organization for Maine Law Enforcement Personnel of Gaelic Decent. Our Society is dedicated to recognizing and
promoting the accomplishments and contributions of our ancestors and fellow Gaelic-Americans to the law enforcement
community. We’re also devoted to developing the spirit of fraternalism and fellowship among our members, while
promoting positive public sentiment towards the law enforcement community. For more info follow the link below;

Maine Police Emerald Society

Maine Public Safety Bands Together in a Proud Tradition

The Corps is more like a family, then just a pipe band. The public safety background that most of the members have brings a feeling of belonging to something much more. We understand the sacrifices that are made for the profession and we believe in the duty, tradition, and honor of public safety service. The Maine Public Safety Pipe & Drum Corps will provide our services free of charge for all Public Safety Personnel funerals and memorials (line of duty deaths and non-duty related deaths for active and retired personnel). As a Corps member, you can learn to play the pipes or drums free of charge, learn new pieces of music, and participate in various performances. For non-playing members, you can join the Honor Guard and render honors through presentation of the Colors.
For more info follow the link below;

Maine Public Safety Pipe and Drum Corps

Law Enforcement Fundraising Bill Enacted Into Law

I am proud to announce to you that LD 2187  "An Act To Allow Limited Charitable Solicitations by Law Enforcement Associations" has been enacted into law by the Maine Legislature on April 10th, 2008. LD2187 currently is in the Governor's office awaiting his signature which would put this landmark bill into law 90 days from its enactment.

This small victory will allow local police organizations and associations to have an identity when working with their local organizations (Lions, Kiwanis, etc) on raising money for a brother or sister officer suffering from a catastrophic illness, as well as their children and spouse. It will allow these entities to have local, ticketed events, with 100% of the money raised going to the affected officer. Although this is not the total bill we wanted, it represents a compromise that allowed its passage into law, and allows officers to know that their brothers and sisters are pulling for them in their time of need.

As this was a huge effort, many thanks go to Executive Director Robert Schwartz from the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, President Mike Edes from the Maine Troopers Association, Outgoing President Mike Pulire from the Maine State Law Enforcement Association, Craig Poulin, Executive Director of MSTA/MSLEA and Executive Director Bob Howe from the Maine Sheriff's Association for their support behind LD 2187.

The success of LD 2187 would not have been possible without the support of its sponsors, House Minority Leader Josh Tardy and Speaker of the House Glenn Cummings. Hannah Pingree, House Majority Leader also lent her great support to our effort. Importantly were the members of the Criminal Justice Committee who made the time to give us a fair hearing and making this change to the law a reality:

Senator Bill Diamond (D-Cumberland), Chair

Senator Earle L. McCormick (R-Kennebec)

Senator Roger L. Sherman (R-Aroostook)

Representative Stan Gerzofsky (D-Brunswick), Chair

Representative Patricia A. Blanchette (D-Bangor)

Representative Anne M. Haskell (D-Portland)

Representative Stephen P. Hanley (D-Gardiner)

Representative Dawn Hill (D-York)

Representative Bryan T. Kaenrath (D-South Portland)

Representative Richard M. Sykes (R-Harrison)*

Representative Christian D. Greeley (R-Levant)

Representative Gary E. Plummer (R-Windham)

Representative Joseph L. Tibbetts (R-Columbia)

It is also important to note that during this process we were assisted greatly by Attorney General Steven Rowe and his Staff in the drafting of the bill language. Without their assistance and willingness to work with Maine Law Enforcement, this would not have been possible.

For those of you who made the time to contact your local legislators, thank you, I can tell you it made a world of difference. If you have the time please send me an email and let me know who you contacted and what their response was as this helps me with our legislative scorecard. Send your info to map75@verizon.net

Again, I am proud to be able to bring this news to Maine's law enforcement family statewide as it again shows that MAP is, and will continue to be,  "Maine's Voice of Law Enforcement". More importantly, it serves as a remembrance of our past battles with our fallen brothers, Edward Roberge, Jack Haubois, and Randall Parsons, for whom we could not fully help in their time of need. I dedicate my efforts to making this law a reality to them, their families, and to all Maine law enforcement officers who have been affected by the current solicitation law.

Stay Safe,

Paul Gaspar 

Download LD 2187 HERE (Comitteee Ammendment "A")

MAP Works On Mis-Coding of Emergency Vehicle Involved Accidents/Request For Info

In Mid September, I began working with the Secretary of State’s office regarding the mis-coding of emergency vehicle involved accident. Since the state’s switch to the new DMV computer system in approximately 1995, officers involved in emergency vehicle accidents have had the accidents incorrectly posted on their personal driving record. By Maine law, police, fire and DPW workers are exempt from this information being posted on their personal driving records.

Although “Emergency Vehicle Involved” is flagged on the “CRASH” report, this flag is not being recognized by the DMV system. The result is that the information is then carried over to the InfoME database, where insurance companies retrieve accident information. The officer’s personal insurance policy is then affected by this accident info. Several members have experienced increases in policy costs, suspension of policies and negative license information.

In working with the IT people at DMV and InfoME, there has been a small breakthrough in fixing this issue. What I am requesting is that if you have had an accident on duty; please check your driving record to verify that the “Emergency Vehicle Involved” Flag is present next to the accident info. If it is not, please send me your information including Name, DOB, date and place of accident. Your personal information will ONLY be used to test the repairs that are being made in the DMV and InfoME systems. You may find in some cases that the information appears correctly as well (Pre 1995 accidents). This has been a long work in progress and the more names I can collect, the faster the system can be re-configured. If you have any questions, please contact me at the office at 767-2558 or by email at map75@verizon.net. Please share this information with others in your area.

State Legislature Speaks Out On Behalf of Labor And The  Social Security/Gov't Pension  Offset

On May 31st, Representative Seth Berry (D- Bowdoinham) held a rally in the Hall of Flags at the State House. Berry unveiled a bi-partisan, joint resolution directing our representatives in Washington to repeal the social Security offset currently in place in 14 states. The Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP),  penalizes some public employees by cutting or taking away completely Social Security benefits they or their spouse earned. 

Legislation (H.R. 82/S. 206) to completely repeal both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision has been reintroduced in the House and Senate. See if your Representative or Senators  are cosponsors. The rally was also attended  by Congressional Delegates Mike Michaud and Tom Allen as well as representatives from Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. All representatives support the effort to repeal this punitive act and allow public employees, their spouses and widowers to retain the money they worked hard to contribute. I will try to follow the progress of the federal bill and keep members updated.

Read the Joint Legislature Resolution Here

(Note: If you try to access a document on this page and receive a username/password prompt, click "cancel" and you will be allowed to view the item or document.)

Maine Law Enforcement Memorial Ceremonies On May 17th

On May 17th, I had the honor to witness the engraving of Deputy David Rancourt's name just an hour before the ceremonies and was able to take these pictures of this rarely seen event.

Deadly force; A Cop's Perspective

Major Garrity Decision Out Of California Has Far-Reaching Implications For Disciplinary Investigations

From The March Issue of Public Safety Labor News

Potentially the most important case in 40 years interpreting Garrity v. New Jersey was decided on January 12, 2007, by the California Court of Appeals. If the reasoning of the decision is adopted by other states, it will fundamentally alter the way disciplinary investigations are conducted.

Thomas Spielbauer was employed as a public defender by Santa Clara County, California. Spielbauer became the subject of a disciplinary investigation into charges that he had either misled or deliberately lied to a judge. At the start of Spielbauer's disciplinary interview, the County's investigator began asking Spielbauer questions. Spielbauer's attorney interjected, stating that Spielbauer would refuse to answer questions "under the protection afforded to him under the Constitution of the State of California, the Constitution of the United States, and the Statutes and Laws of the State of California, the County of Santa Clara, and the United States of America" (apparently the local zoning code was unavailable for citation).

The investigator responded by specifically ordering Spielbauer to answer his questions, and by stating that his statements would be not be admissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The investigator's words were: "Tom, you have a right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself. Your silence, however, may be deemed insubordination, leading to administrative discipline up to and including termination. Any statement made during this interview cannot, and I emphasize cannot, be used against you in a subsequent criminal proceeding. Do you understand what I've just read to you?"

Spielbauer still refused to answer questions, indicating that he would only do so if a formal grant of immunity was received from a court.

The County fired Spielbauer for insubordination for refusing to answer the investigator's questions, and for untruthfulness in his dealings with the judge. Spielbauer challenged his termination in court, arguing that no public employee could be compelled to answer questions in a disciplinary investigation unless the employer first obtained a formal grant of immunity from the use of the interview or the fruits of the interview in a subsequent criminal prosecution.

In an exhaustive opinion, the Court upheld Spielbauer's challenge. The Court first turned to the threshold for Fifth Amendment self-incrimination analysis - in other words, when the Garrity doctrine applies at all. In the Court's eyes, "the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used." The Court found that Spielbauer's investigation easily met this test, and that he could have reasonably believed prosecution could be based upon his answers.

The heart of the matter, the Court observed, was whether Spielbauer "could be compelled to answer, or disciplined for refusing to do so, despite the incriminating potential of his answers." The basic proposition, the Court stated, was that "a state agency cannot compel its employees to answer incriminating questions over a Fifth Amendment objection unless it first grants them protection against the use of their compelled answers, and evidence derived from those answers, in any later criminal prosecution."

The County argued that the operation of immunity under Garrity was automatic, and that the moment it used its authority as an employer to compel Spielbauer to answer the questions, Spielbauer's answers were immunized, and thus his constitutional rights were fully protected. After reviewing the full line of cases decided in the wake of Garrity v. New Jersey, 395 U.S. 493 (1967), the Court ultimately rejected the County's arguments, and held that an employer's promise that compelled statements could not be used in a criminal prosecution was an inadequate protection for an employee's Fifth Amendment rights. Instead, the Court held, the employer must obtain a formal grant of immunity before an employee can be forced to participate in a disciplinary interview.

The Court's rationale bears quoting at some length:

"The foregoing cases stand for the rule that the state cannot compel a public employee to answer incriminating questions 'unless and until he is protected' against the use of his answers to make a criminal case against him. In the absence of such protection, the interrogate is 'privileged to stand mute without fear of punishment for his refusal to answer. The protection contemplated by these cases is a grant of immunity, i.e., an undertaking by the state not to use the answers to prosecute.

"This privilege to stand mute must be distinguished from a second rule of federal constitutional law, which arises after an individual has been unlawfully compelled to answer incriminating questions. Under this rule, when a compulsion to answer violates the interrogatee's right to remain silent, he may object to the admission of his answers, or any evidence derived from them, in any criminal action brought against him. Thus, if a public employee is compelled to answer incriminating questions under a threat of dismissal, his responses will be excluded from a subsequent criminal prosecution. This exclusionary rule is a remedial device predicated upon an unlawful violation of the interrogational privilege.

"In sum, federal cases contemplate two distinct shields, which become available at different stages of a prospective or actual prosecution. The first arises in any official interrogation, and entitles the interrogate to refuse to answer incriminating questions unless immunity is granted. The second arises at the time of a criminal trial, and entitles the defendant to exclude from evidence any incriminating statement, or evidence derived from a statement, that was extracted in violation of the first privilege. The interrogational privilege preserves the right to remain silent; the exclusionary rule remedies a breach of that right. These rights coexist because any attempt to compel incriminating disclosures places the interrogate 'between the rock and the whirlpool.' He is entitled to resist threats of punishment for his exercise of the right to remain silent, but he may be excused if instead he succumbs. In either case, the law strives to vindicate his right to remain silent in the first situation by setting aside any adverse consequences visited upon him for standing mute, and in the second by excluding from evidence his wrongfully compelled statements, and any evidence derived from them. The first right is preservative and protective; the second, restorative and remedial.

"Here, when Spielbauer's supervisor sought to question him in a potentially incriminating manner, Spielbauer asserted his right to remain silent, and the supervisor told him he must answer or subject himself to discipline, including discharge, for insubordination. Although the supervisor stated that Spielbauer's answers could not be admitted in a criminal prosecution, an apparent allusion to the rule of exclusion, he never granted or offered immunity. Under the foregoing authorities, the failure to offer immunity was fatal to any attempt to discipline Spielbauer for remaining silent. It follows that the Board's finding of insubordination cannot survive."

The Court then turned to the next substantial question before it - who could grant the immunity necessary before a disciplinary investigation could proceed? In the Court's eyes, that immunity could only be granted by a prosecutor in a judicially-supervised process. The process suggested by the Court was a petition to the local prosecutor to obtain a protective order immunizing the employee. Such an approach, the Court reasoned, "reflects a meticulous balancing of the needs of would-be interrogators against the prerogative of the Legislature to define crimes and their punishments, and the power and duty of the executive to prosecute the offenses thus defined. An integral part of this balancing is judicial supervision of the process. The immunity thus entails, first, legislative authority implied from statutes applicable to the controversy in which the request for immunity arose; second, due consideration of the risk the immunity may significantly hinder enforcement of the criminal laws; and third, direct involvement of a court by whom the merits of a particular request may be considered, and conflicting interests weighed.

"Requiring a clear grant of immunity provides superior protection to prosecutorial interests precisely because it disables other officials from unilaterally compelling statements that may taint later prosecutions. If an official wants to compel incriminating disclosures, he will have to secure immunity; if he fails to do so, the employee is entitled to stand on his right of silence without fear of repercussions. If the employee does this, no tainted disclosures will be made, and no prosecutor will be required to overcome a later claim that his case has been poisoned. To be sure, the employee's assertion of this right may pose impediments to disciplinary investigations, but surely it is not for the courts to solve that problem with a blanket regime of automatic immunity."

Because Spielbauer's termination was based in part on the insubordination charge, the Court reversed the termination, and remanded the case back to the County for reconsideration of the appropriate punishment for the remaining of Spielbauer's offenses.

Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara, No. H029345 (Cal. App. 2007).

Please Read a Personal Message From Mrs. Donna Lamonaco

MY NAME IS DONNA E LAMONACO AND MY HUSBAND WAS TROOPER PHILIP LAMONACO GUNNED DOWN AND MURDERED ON DEC 21, 81 BY TWO MEMBERS OF A REVOLUTIONARY TERRORIST GROUP CALLED THE UNITED FREEDOM GROUP.  THIS GROUP BEGAN 30 YEARS AGO BY RAY LEVASAUR AND THOMAS MANNING.  THEY WENT TO COLLEGES AROUND THE NEW ENGLAND STATES, RECRUITING FRESH YOUNG MINDS THAT WERE SCREWED UP BY DRUGS AND THE BURNING OF OUR FLAG; THE PROTEST OF VIET NAM AND FLEEING TO CANANDA; SHOWING PROTEST AGAINST OUR COUNTRY AND GOVERNMENT.

DURING THIS TIME THEY ALSO ENTERED PRISONS AND BEFRIENDED "SHORT TERM" NO BODY'S THAT HAD NO LIFE OUT SIDE OF JAIL THUS RICHARD WILLIAMS.  THIS GROUP WAS OVER 15 MEMBER STRONG WITH FAMILIES OF EACH MEMBER.  THEY FINANCED THEMSELVES BY ROBBING BRINKS TRUCKS, THEY SHOWED PROTEST AGAINST OUR GOVERNMENT BY BOMBINGS AND THEIR PLAN TO OVER THE THROW THE US GOVERNMENT WAS #2 KILL ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.  MANNING AND LEVASAUR WERE ON THE FBI'S 10 MOST WANTED LIST.

ON DEC 21, 1981 THINGS CHANGES, THE FBI, THE CIA, THE DEA, COULD NOT FIND NOR STOP THIS GROUP, BUT TROOPER PHILIP J LAMONACO AND NEW JERSEY STATE TROOPER OF 11 YEARS, DID.  HE WAS A HIGHLY DECORATED TROOPER RECEIVING THE TROOPER OF THE YEAR AWARD IN 1979, THE NIGHT AFTER JO ANN CHEISAMARD ESCAPED ANNANDALE PRISON.  IN NOVEMBER OF 81, HE WENT TO NYC TO DO AN ARTICLE AND PHOTO FOR THE NEW JERSEY MAGAZINE AS ONE OF 82 PEOPLE TO LOOK FOR IN 1982.

THIS PERSON WAS MY HUSBAND, FRIEND, MY LOVE.  HE WAS THE FATHER OF OUR THREE CHILDREN.  HE WAS MURDERED THAT DAY AND LEFT ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD TO DIE, HAVING THREE MORE BULLETS IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD BEFORE MANNING AND WILLIAMS LEFT THE SCENE.

THIS PAST WEDNESDAY I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A JERSEY TROOPER ADVISING ME OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MAINE HAVING AN "ART GALLERY" EXPO FROM NOW TILL OCT 4.  HAVING A WEB SITE CALLED "CAN'T JAIL THE SPIRIT".   THING IS, THE PORTRAITS, DRAWINGS, PAINTINGS AND SELF PORTRAIT WERE DONE BY NONE OTHER THAN THOMAS MANNING.  ONE OF THE TWO THAT MURDERED MY HUSBAND THAT COLD DECEMBER NIGHT.  LEAVING HIS FAMILY TO BURY HIM ON CHRISTMAS EVE DAY WITH A 5 YEAR OLD, 4 YEAR OLD AND 10 MONTH OLD BABY.

NOT ONLY WAS THIS COMMON LAW CONVICTED MURDERER WHO SITS BEHIND FEDERAL PRISON FOR CHARGES OF OVER THROWING THE GOVERNMENT AND BOMBINGS, WAITING TO COME TO NEW JERSEY TO BEGIN SERVING TIME FOR PHIL' DEATH, BUT THE GUEST SPEAKER SCHELDED FOR SEPT 15TH., WAS RAY LEVASAUR; THE MAIN PERSON BEHIND THE UNITED FREEDOM FRONT WHO AFTER SERVING ONLY PART OF HIS FEDERAL TIME FOR THE BOMBINGS AND OVER THROW OF THE GOVERNMENT.

FROM THE AFTERNOON OF WEDNESDAY TO THIS VERY MOMENT AND HAD BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH THE MAINE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION, THE CHIEF OF POLICE, THE NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER COPS SETTING UP AN AGENDA FOR MY ARRIVAL ON FRIDAY THE 15TH.  I TOLD THEM AND I TELL ANYONE, WHEN YOU KILL A COP, YOU LEAVE BEHIND A FAMILY THAT IS SO BIG AND SO STRONG AND POWERFUL THAT WHEN IGNORANT PEOPLE SUCH AS THE ONES IN CHARGE OF THIS EXHIBIT DECIDE TO BRING IN COP KILLERS WORKS AND SPEAKERS, WE WILL PREVAIL. 

THERE WERE TROOPERS FROM NEW JERSEY ALL THE WAY TO MAINE WITH EVERY STATE IN BETWEEN WRITING LETTERS AND DRIVING TO MAINE TO STAND WITH ME AND ALONG SIDE OF ME AS WE STAND TALL IN OUR ANGER AND FIGHT TO BRING OUR SIDE OF JUST WHO WAS THIS "POLITICAL PRISONER" EXHIBIT INVOLVING AND WHAT THEY REALLY ARE.

THANKS TO THE BACKING OF ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL TODAY TELLING ME THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY SHUT THE EXHIBIT DOWN.  CLOSED IT UP.  REMOVED ALL PAINTINGS AND CANCELLED ANY AND ALL SPEAKERS.

WE WON.  WE FOUGHT WITH MIGHT AND STRENGTH AND A CAUSE THAT WAS NOTHING SHY OF RIGHT, AND WE WON.

TO ANY OF YOU WHO HAD ANY HAND IN HELPING ME SUCEED IN THIS ;MAJOR; MAJOR ACTION.....I THANK YOU.....I THANK YOU ALL FOR SUPPORTING ME, THE MANY MANY PHONE CALLS AND RESEARCH THAT MAINE LAW ENFORCEMENT WENT THROUGH AND FOR ONCE AGAIN PROVING THAT OUR FAMILY IS A STRONG FAMILY AND WE LOOK OUT FOR EACH OTHER.  DON'T MESS WITH THE MEN AND WOMEN IN BLUE AND OH YEAH THE SURVIVORS.

GOD BLESS AND STAY SAFE

DONNA E LAMONACO

Troopers Werner Foerster, Philip Lamonaco and Lt. Lester Pagano

ATTORNEY GENERAL RELEASES INDEPENDENT SHOOTING REPORTS

Read the final reports justifying the use of deadly force in officer involved shooting in Sanford and Jay. 

Sanford Shooting Report

State Police Shooting in Jay

MAP Designates New Primary Contact for Critical Incidents

Review, download, Print & POST the updated Critical Incident Procedures Here

IMPORTANT NOTICE ON LD 936 "IMMUNITY" BILL

Read Change to Bill Text Here

Read History of Bill Here

(Note: If you try to access a document on this page and receive a username/password prompt, click "cancel" and you will be allowed to view the item or document.)

Case law of Interest

This case involves the City of Boston against the Patrolman's Association. In this case the city was able to vacate an arbitrator's ruling, contrary to public policy, when the arbitrator overturned the termination of an untruthful police officer.

Read the Case Summary Here

(Note: If you try to access a document on this page and receive a username/password prompt, click "cancel" and you will be allowed to view the item or document.)