You are on page 1of 2

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

OBJECTION AND IMPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOTICE Page 1 of 2
STATE OF MAINE
KENNEBEC, ss
DOCKET NO. AUGSC-CR-2012-286


STATE OF MAINE *
PLAINTIFF *
v *
GINA TURCOTTE *
DEFENDANT *

NOW COMES GINA TURCOTTE, sui juris, all rights expressly and irrevocably
reserved, incorporates DEFENDANTs Notice of Non-Opposition filed on May 16, 2014 as
if set forth fully herein, and gives this court imperative judicial notice that DEFENDANT
OBJECTS to HAROLD HAINKE receiving payment for any legal services rendered for
this case, for the following reasons:
1. In June 2012, Harold Hainke clearly expressed his disbelief in DEFENDANTs
legal strategy 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.
2. 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!
3. Throughout this entire case history, Harold Hainke has declared that he is
not my attorney and has no obligation to protect my rights.
4. Despite Harold Hainke repeatedly denying any attorney-client status, he has
repeatedly sent and accepted written communications and knowingly
communicated with the court, Joelle Pratt and other parties about this case
expressly failing in all his legal duties.
5. Harold Hainkes legal role has been de minimus having had no impact on the
current dismissed status.
6. Harold Hainke has used a frivolous excuse to attempt to withdraw from this
case since nothing more will happen until December 16, 2014.
7. DEFENDANT does not need Harold Hainkes deleterious inept counsel.
OBJECTION
AND
IMPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOTICE
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

OBJECTION AND IMPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOTICE Page 2 of 2
8. DEFENDANT understands all attorneys who represent indigent defendants
are required to wait until the close of the case before they are allowed to
submit their vouchers for payment.
9. DEFENDANTs case will not be closed by this court until December 17, 2014.
10. DEFENDANT believes Harold Hainke submitted his motion to withdraw as an
attempt to expedite his receipt of payment for the insignificant work he claims
to have done prior to this case being closed.
11. DEFENDANT gives judicial notice to this court that Harold Hainke purposely
violated a private contract, nunc pro tunc, and has waived his right to receive
any payment as a result of his violation of DEFENDANTs legal contract.

WHEREFORE, DEFENDANT hereby OBJECTS to HAROLD HAINKE receiving
any payment for any legal services allegedly provided to DEFENDANT.

Signed in Augusta, Maine on this 2
nd
day of June, 2014.

In Peace,


GINA TURCOTTE
32 COURT ST APT 1
AUGUSTA, MAINE

You might also like