1

Cynthia J Rosen 482 Waldoboro Road, Washington Maine 207-691-2803 The Honorable William J Schneider Attorney General of Maine 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333 August 10th, 2011 Dear Attorney General Schneider,

I am presenting you with evidence of criminal actions committed against me and my family by public officials employed under the Department of Public Safety. Included in this packet are copies of the public records of the violations against the public officers involved, the correspondences regarding the inquiry into my charges, and the final results of that inquiry. One week to the day of the last general election, on October 26th, 2010 my home was invaded, my husband forcefully hand cuffed in his place of business and subjected to interrogation by armed and paid for thugs working for this state. No charges were levied against us. It is now part of the court record that we were found, despite this unlawful home invasion, to be innocent of any criminal activity. Upon reviewing the sworn statement of the court to obtain permission to invade my home, I found that we had been subjected to surveillance for over 6 months, that alleged anonymous claims were used as probable cause, that our property was trespassed upon late at night and a potentially lethal situation was planned and executed that placed my husband, my family and me in danger.

These public officials have no Constitutional or other valid authority to defy the Constitutions, to which they owe their LIMITED authority, delegated to them by and through the People, and to which they swore their oaths. Henry Campbell Black, himself, stated that the provisions of a constitution refer to the fundamental principles of government and the guaranty of liberties, [Constitutions announce principles, while statutes apply them. Sproules v. State, 97 Tex Cr. R. 561, 262 S. W. 757.] A Citizen must decide that an action by government or as in this specific case, actions by specific government officials, are unconstitutional. If the Citizen never takes a stand all actions are presumed to be constitutional. ["It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. v. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382, 443] The oath is given in exchange for the Public Trust, and the oath taker is lawfully bound to uphold the Public Trust. These particular public officials are shielded by the badge, having power that comes with a gun. They unlawfully made an assumption not based upon any fact, law or evidence or any sworn complaint by a Citizen allegedly harmed by our alleged actions that we were guilty, based upon the alleged claims of an alleged unsigned letter, which they failed to produce, despite our attempts to obtain it. They exercised no other options to attempt to substantiate the alleged anonymous claims other then launching surveillance and trespassing. The agents statement to the court references our business 3 separate times yet they never visited. Described is our business sign at the front of our driveway, our 2 DOT business signs on Route 17, and the agent having gone to our business website. They denied our Rights while their own negligence does not support their own stated suspicions as for 6 months they did not even visit the open business they were more then cognizant of. No evidence of criminal activity nor suspicious activity, no signed complaint that our actions were causing harm to anyone, no exigent circumstances to suspend our rights, did they find during their 6 months of surveillance. They then decided to plan a night time escapade that required them to traipse though
2

neighboring properties to get to ours, to try to find evidence of alleged crimes. They were close enough to our greenhouse, where my husband was living at the time, to make my husbands dog bark. Further still, is the intention to sneak closer when they state they could not because of the dog barking. When the question of the danger inherent in this situation was put to those in supervisory capacity, specifically asking what would have happened if my husband grabbed his gun and stepped outside to see why his dog was barking; would he have been shot?, I was told, Yes, he could have been shot. I have sent lawful notification to the directly offending agents and their supervisors having oversight responsibility, clearly informing them of the 4th and 6th amendment Rights violations, the violations of other constitutionally secured Rights including due process and their lawful responsibility to respond. S/A Jason Pease, S/SA James Pease, Commander Kenneth Pike, Director Roy McKinney and Commissioner John Morris each received lawful notification of my charges. I received zero response from any of the 5 recipients of the notifications. See [Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is the first essential of due process of law. ] see also [U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.] I received one letter from Christopher Parr, the Council for the Department of Public Safety attempting to inform me of Commissioner Morris choice to not respond. I replied to this letter informing Mr. Parr that I had written to Commissioner Morris in his professional capacity, not to Parr; that I had informed Mr. Morris that officers under his department had harmed, and could have possibly injured and killed Citizens of this state by their unlawful actions and that pursuant to his oath I expected a response. Six weeks after they each received the lawful notifications and one week after my reply to Christopher Parr an inquiry was ordered into my complaints by Mr. Morris. He had chosen, though, to place this review into the hands of the very people who had not answered the previous notifications of my charges and had also received my
3

sworn statements of the violations that are a matter of public record. The agency was ordered to investigate itself. Commissioner Morris placed the review with Roy McKinney, Director of Maines Drug Enforcement Agency. Mr. McKinney, as stated above, had previously received lawful notification of his underlings actions on February 7 th, 2011 and failed to respond. Roy McKinney ordered Kenneth Pike to gather information for this socalled inquiry. Kenneth Pike also received the lawful notification, failed to respond, and had previously refused to provide me copy of the alleged letters that they used as reason to have launched their investigation against my family and in doing so denied me due process, as I have the Right to evidence allegedly in support of the violations perpetrated against my family. A legitimate investigation would be conducted by an objective disinterested party, with no association with any of the participants in the violations, who would act only upon the known facts of the matter in respect to all applicable governing laws, namely the state and federal constitutions; neither Director McKinney nor Commander Pike fit this description. Mr. McKinney's conclusion is that the officers involved not only acted "reasonably", but were also "in keeping with accepted law enforcement investigative practices." In other words, the 4th & 6th Amendment violations, the violations of other constitutionally secured Rights including due process are not only accepted and condoned but also an openly admitted to custom, policy and practice of that office and its jurisdiction. This is a most serious admission. This statement from the department that using alleged anonymous claims as probable cause, opening investigations on innocent people, claiming a right to do so based on alleged unsigned accusations and further, refusing to provide proof of ever having received the alleged claims, and still further and of critical import, endangering the lives of citizens, in search of evidence of crimes anonymously alleged and without foundation, are actions not to be corrected but expected. This equates to colluding and conspiring to deny other citizens their constitutional Rights; as the actions of his officers are "accepted investigative practices" and therefore, I repeat, are not to be corrected but expected. The department is telling the Maine people that at any time law
4

enforcement agents can endanger any one of their lives for no reason other then an alleged unsigned unproduced faceless claim for which they claim they also do not have to even provide evidence of. This statement from the director informs me that I can expect what they did to my family to be done again. [See Conspiracy against rights -- 18 U.S. C. 241, Deprivation of rights under color of law --18 U.S.C. 242. Mr. McKinney writes in his letter of conclusion that

"officers did conduct short-term surveillances". The court document states that "Surveillance was ongoing from the receipt of the letter to the point of the Affidavit". That would be from April 6th, 2010 to October 25th, 2010. The sworn statement provided to the court describes the trespass in terms that communicate a focused level of planning and action. It is stated in the court document that due to the light of the moon we were able to maneuver through the woods and wet areas to get to a position behind the property. Mr. McKinney incorrectly states that the officers just gathered information walking near the property. Let us not forget - it is Agent Jason Pease's sworn statement to the court upon which the judge issued a warrant. My home was invaded due to that sworn statement. No amount of whitewashing can erase that sworn statement. I do not charge that Pease's statement was false. I charge that Pease's sworn statement is true. By his own admission he denied my Rights. Mr. McKinney's anecdotal opinions and deliberate misrepresentations communicates his bias. He also provided no fact, law or evidence supporting any of his statements in his letter. That Mr. McKinney determined that the officers never entered the curtilage though at no time during this so called inquiry did any investigating official visit the property to make this determination, he most certainly reveals that this inquiry was a complete mockery while admitting that practices engaged in by law enforcement that deny constitutional Rights and endanger the people are accepted as normal operating procedure. All public officers have taken oaths to support the federal and state Constitutions and are required to abide by the Constitutional mandates contained in and imposed upon them by their oaths in the performance of their official duties. Further, all public officers are required to act
5

only within the lawful scope of their limited authority and delegated duties. These public officials have denied constitutionally guaranteed Rights, perjuring their oaths. These public officials have put Citizens at risk through having set up a potentially lethal situation in their stated endeavor to find evidence of alleged crimes. They have violated the security and safety of individuals and their family and have degraded community security and trust and further, their supervisors accept all the aforementioned as standard practice, actions not to be corrected but expected. The public records of the violations perpetrated upon my family and me remain unrebutted and therefore stand as truth. My family is still not safe. I have been told to expect this to happen again. The people of this state are not safe. The actions my family have been made to suffer are acceptable investigative practices. I am asking you, in your professional capacity, to see the merit in dealing with this now. These actions of Maines public officials are methods of the KGB and SS; not to be tolerated from local Maine law enforcement. When the civilian population loses confidence in law enforcement, the loss of confidence itself and the resultant adversarial relationship it creates, produces a security risk that effects the general population; civilian and law enforcement alike. The position of power that comes with a gun demands accountability. The time to deal with this is not after someone gets shot. [Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 [Fourth Amendment rights] are not mere second-class rights, but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. . . .But the right to be secure against searches and seizures is one of the most difficult to protect. Since the officers are themselves the chief invaders, there is no enforcement outside of court.]

I have presented lawful notice to you of wrongdoing and crimes committed by public
6

officers and violations of the Constitutions, pursuant to their oaths. You have a lawful duty, once you have received a Citizens complaints regarding these crimes, to take action, investigate, assess accountability and responsibility, and hold the perpetrators liable for their actions. If you and your office fail to act, then, it would appear that you have no interest in Citizens complaints and reports regarding crimes by public officers, and, in fact, condone, aid and abet them, thus, essentially commit misprision of crime. John Locke once wrote, "Despotical power is an absolute, arbitrary power one man has over another to take away his life whenever he pleases.

I certainly hope, sir, that you are a man of honor, who will abide by his oath, and who will use your office, as it is supposed to be used, thus, take actions against government officers who terrorize the people for no valid reason.

All Rights Reserved, Cynthia J Rosen