Legal
State of Maine Statutes. Possibly relevant sections in red.
Some of this seems to apply to various aspects of the Stevens Avenue Project, in various ways. It all depends on who said what, to whom, and the documents that were created to start and maintain the project. I'm not a lawyer, but I can read.
Portland DPW
has created a number of documents that present wrong information that sounds
plausible to the uninformed, in an attempt to support the Stevens Project, the
Oaks Project, and all their recent stop sign installations.
In other areas they have flat out and out lied (or, assuming
they thought they were telling the truth, they just didn't know what they were
talking about).
This is what coercion by a City Council can do.
Perjury
False Swearing
Unsworn Falsification
Tampering
Falsifying Physical Evidence
Tampering with Public
Records
Cumberland County Regulations:
Regular Inspections
Failure to Provide
Safety and Convenience
Liability
Personal
Injury
Various Portland officials have given testimony or created documents supporting the Stevens Project, Deering Oaks Project, Capisic Street Project to, and for, the Portland City Council, State of Maine, Federal Highway Administration, EPA, and God only knows who else.
Even if one assumes that these officials didn't think they were lying at the start of the program, or were then just mistaken in their statements, now they know better. They still, however, maintain their earlier positions on the project, and still support it.
This means that they are officially lying. Maine law says this is perjury:
CHAPTER 19
FALSIFICATION IN OFFICIAL MATTERS
17A § 451. Perjury
1. A person is guilty of perjury if he makes:
A. In any official proceeding, a false material statement under oath or affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a material statement previously made, and he does not believe the statement to be true; or [1975, c. 740, §61 (amd).]
B. Inconsistent material statements, in the same official proceeding, under oath or affirmation, both within the period of limitations, one of which statements is false and not believed by him to be true. [1975, c. 499, §1 (new).]
[1975,
c. 740, §61 (amd).]
2. In a prosecution under subsection 1, paragraph B, it need not be alleged or proved which of the statements is false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the person to be true.
[1999,
c. 13, §1 (amd).]
3. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the defendant retracted the falsification in the course of the official proceeding in which it was made, and before it became manifest that the falsification was or would have been exposed.
[1981,
c. 317, §12 (amd).]
3-A. In a prosecution under subsection 1, paragraph A, evidence that the allegedly false testimony in the prior official proceeding was contradicted by evidence in that proceeding may not be a sufficient basis by itself to sustain a conviction for perjury.
[1981,
c. 317, §13 (new).]
4. It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the oath or affirmation was administered or taken in an irregular manner or that the declarant was not a competent witness in making the statement or was disqualified from doing so. A document purporting to be made upon oath or affirmation at any time when the actor presents it as being so verified shall be deemed to have been duly sworn or affirmed.
[1975,
c. 740, §62 (amd).]
5. As used in this section:
A. "Official proceeding" means any proceeding before a legislative, judicial, administrative or other governmental body or official authorized by law to take evidence under oath or affirmation including a notary or other person taking evidence in connection with any such proceeding; [1975, c. 499, §1 (new).]
B. "Material" means capable of affecting the course or outcome of the proceeding. [1975, c. 499, §1 (new).]
6. Perjury is a Class C crime.
Various Portland officials created documentation for the Federal Highway Administration that led that agency to fund the Stevens Project, and attempted to get funding for the Deering Oaks project. They distorted the facts of the projects in both cases, and misled the FHWA officials, EPA, MDOT, (pick an agency) : "public servants performing their official duties".
If these Portland officials did in fact believe their misinformation to be true, then they did not know what they were talking about. They are either lying or ignorant.
For example:
Telling the
Portland public that the Stevens Project was a "safety" project, while
at
the same time telling the federal agencies involved that it was a "clean
air project",
to get it funded.
Telling the Federal Highway Administration that the Project would be removed if
the
second Phase of funding for it was not approved,
while having no intention to do so.
Telling the FHWA that one of the purposes of the Project was to divert truck
traffic
"to less congested streets", knowing full well that there
aren't any.
Telling everybody that the Deering Oaks Project "could make the air
cleaner" while
knowing full well it was going to get worse. It would also" improve
mobility",
"Increase
access", "decrease congestion", "rejoin the park halves", and so on.
All of which are lies.
17A § 452. False swearing
1. A person is guilty of false swearing if:
A. He makes a false statement under oath or affirmation or swears or affirms the truth of such a statement previously made and he does not believe the statement to be true, provided
(1) The falsification occurs in an official proceeding as defined in section 451, subsection 5, paragraph A, or is made with the intention to mislead a public servant performing his official duties; or
(2) The statement is one which is required by law to be sworn or affirmed before a notary or other person authorized to administer oaths; or [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]
B. He makes inconsistent statements under oath or affirmation, both within the period of limitations, one of which is false and not believed by him to be true. In a prosecution under this subsection, it need not be alleged or proved which of the statements is false, but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true. [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).] [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]
2. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that, when made in an official proceeding, the defendant retracted the falsification in the course of such proceeding before it became manifest that the falsification was or would have been exposed. [1981, c. 317, § 14 (amd).]
2-A. In a prosecution under subsection 1, paragraph A, evidence that the allegedly false testimony or statement in the prior official proceeding or before a notary or other person authorized to administer oaths was contradicted by evidence in that proceeding may not be a sufficient basis by itself to sustain a conviction for false swearing. [1983, c. 450, § 3 (amd).]
3. It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the oath or affirmation was administered or taken in an irregular manner or that the declarant was not a competent witness in making the statement or was disqualified from doing so. A document purporting to be made upon oaths or affirmation at any time when the actor presents it as being so verified shall be deemed to have been duly sworn or affirmed. [1975, c. 740, § 63 (amd).]
4. False swearing is a Class D crime. [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]
This all comes down to whether or not all the experts involved in creation of this fiasco knew what they were talking about. They all said they did, having many years in their fields of expertise.
17A § 453. Unsworn falsification
1. A person is guilty of unsworn falsification if:
A. He makes a written false statement which he does not believe to be true, on or pursuant to, a form conspicuously bearing notification authorized by statute or regulation to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable; [1981, c. 317, § 16 (amd).]
B. With the intent to deceive a public servant in the performance of his official duties, he
(1) makes any written false statement which he does not believe to be true, provided, however, that this subsection does not apply in the case of a written false statement made to a law enforcement officer by a person then in official custody and suspected of having committed a crime, except as provided in paragraph C; or
(2) knowingly creates, or attempts to create, a false impression in a written application for any pecuniary or other benefit by omitting information necessary to prevent statements therein from being misleading; or
(3) submits or invites reliance on any sample, specimen, map, boundary mark or other object which he knows to be false; or [1981, c. 317, § § 17, 18 (amd).]
C. With the intent to conceal his identity from a law enforcement officer while under arrest for a crime, after having been warned that it is a crime to give false information concerning identity, he gives false information concerning his name or date of birth, including, but not limited to, a signature. [1981, c. 317, § 19 (new).] [1981, c. 317, § § 16 -- 19 (amd).]
2. Unsworn falsification is a Class D crime. [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]
When the Federal Highway Administration investigated the history of the Stevens project for a couple of weeks in November 1977, they found a number of irregularities. The director of the Stevens Projects' funding agency told me that all the local and state officials involved "were singing from the same page of the hymnal. They had gotten their story straight".
This must mean that all the people involved got together, or at least talked on the phone, to determine what to tell the FHWA man, to make sure their stories all agreed. Is this "tampering" ? If it isn't, what is it? Collusion?
If the Council tells Gorrill-Palmer Assoc. or Wilbur / Smith to downplay the detriments and promote the benefits of a project like the Oaks project, to lie in an official document or redact information negative to their effort, what is that?
17A § 454. Tampering with a witness, informant or victim or juror
1. A person is guilty of tampering with a witness, informant or victim if, believing that an official proceeding, as defined in section 451, subsection 5, paragraph A, or an official criminal investigation is pending or will be instituted, that person:
A. Induces or otherwise causes, or attempts to induce or cause, a witness, informant or victim:
(1) To testify or inform falsely; or
(2) To withhold any testimony, information or evidence; [1989, c. 300 (amd).]
B. Uses force, violence or intimidation, or promises, offers or gives any pecuniary benefit with the intent to induce a witness, informant or victim:
(1) To withhold any testimony, information or evidence;
(2) To refrain from attending any criminal proceeding or criminal investigation; or
(3) To refrain from attending any other proceeding or investigation to which the witness, informant or victim has been summoned by legal process; or [1989, c. 300 (amd).]
C. Solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit for doing any of the things specified in paragraph A, subparagraph (1), or in paragraph B, subparagraph (1), (2) or (3). [1989, c. 300 (amd).]
[1989, c. 300 (amd); c. 878, Pt. B, §16 (amd).]
1-A. A person is guilty of tampering with a juror, if that person contacts, by any means, a person who is a juror or any other person the actor believes is in a position to influence a juror and the actor does so with the intention of influencing the juror in the performance of the juror's duty.
[1989, c. 300 (new).]
2. Tampering with a witness, informant or juror is a Class C crime. Tampering with a victim is a Class B crime.
[1989, c. 300 (amd).]
3
[1989, c. 300 (rp).]
4. Notwithstanding subsection 2, when the most serious charge or charges against the defendant include murder or a Class A crime, tampering with the victim of any crime charged or a juror involved in the criminal proceedings is a Class B crime.
Essentially, anything that anyone anywhere can come up with in support of the Stevens Project or the Deering Oaks Project, is going to be guilty of falsifying. Every study done by the city of Portland itself, not to mention other traffic engineering offices in the U.S., has refuted the supporters contentions.
17A § 455. Falsifying physical evidence
1. A person is guilty of falsifying physical evidence if, believing that an official proceeding as defined in section 451, subsection 5, paragraph A, or an official criminal investigation, is pending or will be instituted, he:
A. Alters, destroys, conceals or removes any thing relevant to such proceeding or investigation with intent to impair its verity, authenticity or availability in such proceeding or investigation; or [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]
B. Presents or uses any thing which he knows to be false with intent to deceive a public servant who is or may be engaged in such proceeding or investigation. [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]
[1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]
2. Falsifying physical evidence is a Class D crime. [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]
This basically covers any document created to support the Stevens project, Deering Oaks project, Brighton Avenue Project, Capisic Street project: It's that simple.
17A § 456. Tampering with public records or information
1. A person is guilty of tampering with public records or information if he:
A. Knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of any record, document or thing belonging to, or received or kept by the government, or required by law to be kept by others for the information of the government; or [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]
B. Presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false, and with intent that it be taken as a genuine part of information or records referred to in subsection 1, paragraph A; or [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]
C. Intentionally destroys, conceals, removes or otherwise impairs the verity or availability of any such record, document or thing, knowing that he lacks authority to do so. [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).] [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]
2. Tampering with public records or information is a Class D crime. [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]
The following is a county law that is self-explanatory. Seeing that the humps have made Stevens Avenue more dangerous, this might apply.....
23 MRS. § 2702. Regular inspections
PART 3: LOCAL HIGHWAY LAW
CHAPTER 301: GENERAL PROVISIONS
SUBCHAPTER 1: ROAD COMMISSIONER
§ 2702. Regular inspections
§ 2702. Regular inspections Road commissioners shall go over the roads in their towns, or cause it to be done, in April, May, June, August, September, October and November in each year, remove the loose obstructions to the public travel and, whenever so directed by the selectmen, remove all shrubbery and bushes growing within the limits of highways, not planted or cultivated therein for the purpose of profit or ornamentation, having care for the proper preservation of shade trees, and repair such defects as may occur from time to time, rendering travel dangerous, or they shall give notice of such defects to the municipal officers under a penalty of $5 for neglect of such duty.
Failure to Provide Safety and Convenience
This is fascinating: The road is patently less safe as shown by the increase in accidents. The City itself says that 2,500 cars a day avoid Stevens because of the humps, so it must be "inconvenient".
The officials involved should be "indicted and convicted"? We should be so lucky.
Re: Legal objects not defects: the current Portland Traffic Calming Ordinance specifically prohibits humps from arterials. The ones on Stevens are not legal applications to the road, existing outside the ordinance, and they therefore are defects in a public way.
TITLE 23: HIGHWAYS
PART 3: LOCAL HIGHWAY LAW
o CHAPTER 313: LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES
§ 3651. Failure to provide safety and convenience
§ 3651. Failure to provide safety and convenience
Highways, town ways and streets legally established shall be opened and kept in repair so as to be safe and convenient for travelers with motor vehicles. In default thereof those liable may be indicted, convicted and a reasonable fine imposed therefor. [1977, c. 363, § 5 (amd).]
1. Legal objects not defects. Trees, structures and other things which exist in accordance with municipal ordinances are not defects in a public way. [ 1987, c. 583, §1 (new).]
TITLE 23: HIGHWAYS
PART 3: LOCAL HIGHWAY LAW
CHAPTER 313: LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES § 3652. Notice of defect, hearing on petition
§ 3652. Notice of defect; hearing on petition
When a town liable to maintain a way unreasonably neglects to keep it in repair as provided in section 3651, after one of the municipal officers has had 5 days' actual notice or knowledge of the defective condition, any 3 or more responsible persons may petition the county commissioners for the county, setting forth such facts, who, if satisfied that such petitioners are responsible for the costs of the proceedings, shall fix a time and place near such defective way for a hearing on such petition and cause such notice thereof to be given to the town and petitioners as they may prescribe. At the time appointed, the commissioners shall view the way alleged to be out of repair and hear the parties interested, and if they adjudge the way to be unsafe and inconvenient for travelers, motor vehicles, horses, teams and carriages, they shall prescribe what repairs shall be made, fix the time in which the town shall make them, give notice thereof to the municipal officers and award the costs of the proceedings against the town. If they adjudge the way to be safe and convenient, they shall dismiss the petition and award the costs against the petitioners.
If they find that the way was defective at the time of presentation of the petition, but has been repaired before the hearing, they may award the costs against the town, if in their judgment justice requires it.
23 M.R.S. § 3655.
Personal injury actions; limitations; damages; noticePART 3: LOCAL HIGHWAY LAW
CHAPTER 313: LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES
§ 3655. Personal injury actions; limitations; damages; notice
§ 3655. Personal injury actions; limitations; damages; notice Whoever receives any bodily injury or suffers damage in his property through any defect or want of repair or sufficient railing in any highway, town way, causeway or bridge may recover for the same in a civil action, to be commenced within one year from the date of receiving such injury or suffering damage, of the county or town obliged by law to repair the same, if the commissioners of such county or the municipal officers or road commissioners of such town or any parson authorized by any commissioner of such county or any municipal officer or road commissioner of such town to act as a substitute for either of them had 24 hours' actual notice of the defect or want of repair, but not exceeding $6,000 in case of a town. If the sufferer had notice of the condition of such way previous to the time of the injury, he cannot recover of a town unless he has previously notified one of the municipal officers of the defective condition of such way. Any person who sustains injury or damage or some person in his behalf shall, within 180 days thereafter, notify one of the county commissioners of such county or of the municipal officers of such town by letter or otherwise, in writing, setting forth his claim for damages and specifying the nature of his injuries and the nature and location of the defect which caused such injury. If the life of any parson is lost through such deficiency, his executors or administrators may recover of such counnty or town liable to keep the same in repair, in a civil action, brought for the benefit of the estate of the deceased, such stun as the jury may deem reasonable as damages, if the parties liable had said notice of the deficiency which caused the loss of life. In any action against a town for damages for loss of life permitted under this section, the claim for and award of damages, including costs, against a town and its employees shall be disposed of as provided under <,< Title>.> 18-A, section 2-804, but shall not exceed $25,000 for each claim and $300,000 for any and all claims arising out of a single occurrence. No damages for the loss of comfort, society and companionship of the deceased shall be allowed in an action under this section. At the trial of any such action the court may, on motion of either party, order a view of the premises where the defect or want of repair is alleged when it would materially aid in a clear understanding of the case. [1979, c. 663, § 138 (amd).]
Section History: 1977, c. 2, § 3,5 (AMD). 1977, c. 578, § 7 (AMD). 1977, c. 591, § 4-6 (AMD). 1979, c. 663, § 138 (AMD). 1979, c. 68, § 3,5 (AMD).
7 State House
Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0007
Phone: (207) 287-1650
revisor.office@state.me.us
The State of Maine claims a copyright in its codified statutes. If you intend to republish this material, we do require that you include the following disclaimer in your publication:
All copyrights and other rights to statutory text are reserved by the State of Maine. The text included in this publication is current to the end of the First Regular Session of the 119th Legislature, which ended June 18, 1999, but is subject to change without notice. It is a version that has not been officially certified by the Secretary of State. Refer to the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated and supplements for certified text.
The Office of the Revisor of Statutes also requests that you send us one copy of any statutory publication you may produce. Our goal is not to restrict publishing activity, but to keep track of who is publishing what, to identify any needless duplication and to preserve the State’s copyright rights.