Wednesday, September 17, 2014

DA Rushlau Weak on Domestic Violence

Domestic violence: Does punishment fit the crime?
Victim advocates at odds with district attorney
By Stephen Betts | Mar 25, 2010


ROCKLAND — Advocates for domestic violence victims say they are concerned about the adequacy of local efforts to prosecute the accused offenders.
The criticism focuses on the use of a process called deferred disposition in which the charges are lowered to lesser offenses if the accused stays out of trouble for a period of time and undergoes counseling. The advocates also are critical of the
lack of use of a domestic violence court that was created in Knox County three years ago in an effort to reduce the number of repeat offenders.
District Attorney Geoffrey Rushlau acknowledged the domestic violence court could be used more often but defended his office's approach to domestic violence cases.
Kathleen Morgan, the executive director of New Hope for Women, said her concerns about the adequacy of prosecution became acute last year when she attended a local forum on domestic violence and a few examples of how domestic violence cases were handled came to her attention.
In one case from January 2009, a 36-year-old woman in Rockland was grabbed from the shower by her male companion. The 34-year-old man beat her in the head and stomach. The man then put his hands around her neck and started to strangle her to the point where she could not breathe, all the time telling her he was going to kill her, according to the police report filed in court.
The woman managed to get away from the man and she fled naked from the house in the middle of what was the coldest night of the year. A neighbor was walking a dog and spotted the woman being chased by the man. When the man saw the neighbor, he fled the scene, and the neighbor brought the woman inside and called police.
The woman was taken to the hospital where she was found to have bruises on her head, face, neck, chest, back, buttocks, arms, knees, legs and ankles. The medical staff also found broken vessels around her eyes that were indicative of prolonged strangulation.
Rushlau said in this case, the victim became uncooperative and the police and District Attorney's Office were unable to contact her as a court date neared. The District Attorney's Office reached a plea agreement with the offender in which he pleaded guilty.
In the agreement, the felony aggravated assault will be dismissed and a misdemeanor assault conviction will result if the offender adheres to a series of conditions imposed on him, including anger management therapy. The offender is scheduled to return to court in June 2011. If he adheres to the terms by June 2011, the man will be sentenced to 364 days in jail. If not, the judge will be free to sentence him to whatever is deemed appropriate on the original aggravated assault charge.
The offender has a previous conviction for assault on an officer.

Morgan said she disagrees strongly with the district attorney's approach in this case. "I was outraged when I learned the details of the case," Morgan said.
She said there is a lot of training available to teach law enforcement how to prosecute cases even when the victim is uncooperative. In this case, she said, there was considerable physical evidence gathered by the sheriff's office specifically linked to the accused as well as statements from the neighbor and from witnesses who had seen the man's behavior toward the woman earlier in the evening.
Morgan said if the neighbor had not been out walking the dog, the case could have become a homicide.
She also criticized the handling of a case from a few years ago when a man was accused of threatening his estranged wife with a gun but the charge was reduced through a deferred disposition to disorderly conduct. In this case, the man held a position of authority in the community.
And the head of New Hope said a third case shows that even when a person is going through deferred disposition and violates the terms, the offender is not held accountable.
In that case, a Warren man, who was 18 years old at the time, was charged with assaulting a woman in 2007 in Warren. In July 2009, he pleaded guilty to one count of domestic violence assault as part of a deferred disposition. The agreement was that if he did not re-offend for the next six months, the charge would be reduced.
A little more than two months after his court hearing to accept the deferred disposition, the man was arrested for a new domestic violence assault charge. In the new case, a woman - who was not the same person as the first victim - claimed that she had gone to her boyfriend's house to take him to work and he was angry about being woken up. As the two were in the car and the woman was driving, the man became angrier and grabbed her by the hair and slammed her head into the door, according to the police report filed in court. She stopped the vehicle and ran from the scene.
That case was later dropped when the witness became unavailable, according to the court records.
In December, the District Attorney's Office agreed to a new deferred disposition for that defendant that will run through December 2010. If he does not re-offend during that period, the domestic violence assault charge will be dismissed and he will be sentenced to 10 days in jail for disorderly conduct.
Morgan criticized these decisions, noting the offender ends up with no record for domestic violence. She said the offender is not held accountable and is not made to admit his behavior.
Court program underused
One program aimed at reducing repeat offenders is the domestic violence court.
The domestic violence courts were started in Maine in 2002. There are now 11 courts in the state that use the program, including 6th District Court in Rockland. The Rockland domestic violence court began in February 2007.
Jody Johnson, the domestic violence coordinator for the state who also administers the federal grant that has helped operate the court program, said there are 12 active cases in the court in Rockland.
The state District Court in Skowhegan has the most active cases with 75. Waterville has 63 active cases, Portland has 59, Biddeford has 48, Springvale has 47, York has 25, and Lewiston has 20. The only two courts that have fewer active cases are Machias and West Bath, which both have eight active cases.
Under the domestic violence court program, people convicted of domestic violence assault are required to meet on a regular basis not only with a probation officer but also with the judge who sentenced them. The judge will monitor the case to make sure the offender is following through on court-ordered conditions such as counseling.
Cases are directed to that program upon the recommendation of the District Attorney's Office although Johnson said a judge could also recommend a case to the system.
"It's not used a lot here," Rushlau said. "We will look into why not that many cases go through the [domestic violence] court."
He said one concern defense attorneys raise in objection to use of the domestic violence court is that defendants will miss more days of work with these meetings with a judge.
"We're doing whatever we can to keep them from coming back," he said.
In terms of acting on cases referred to the District Attorney's Office by police, Rushlau said a decision on how to prosecute depends on the evidence.
"Typically, like any other criminal case, domestic violence cases will rise and fall on the strength of the case," Rushlau said.
He said when there is a strong case, his office ideally would like to go to trial to get a conviction for domestic violence assault but there is no guarantee of a conviction when going to a jury trial.
The assistant district attorneys have significant discretion in cases, he said.
"I can't get involved in every prosecution in all four counties," he said.
Rushlau is the chief prosecutor for Knox, Lincoln, Waldo and Sagadahoc counties.
He said that if a case goes to a jury and the defendant is acquitted there are no consequences. That is why prosecutors will consider plea agreements. Rushlau said he objects to the phrase "plea deal" and instead "plea agreement" is the more concise phrase. In a plea agreement, both sides back away from their original positions.
Rushlau said the District Attorney's Office and domestic violence prevention groups have shared goals but not shared means to achieve the goals.
He said when domestic violence occurs in front of children, his office will often prosecute, even when the victim wants the case to be dropped, because of the impact that witnessing the offense has on the youngsters.
Rushlau said all the pieces are in place to deal with domestic violence cases but the problem is often communications. He said an improved police database system allows officers to know who is on bail for domestic violence and what their conditions are. If the suspect is stopped by an officer and is in the presence of the victim, police can make an arrest.
The District Attorney's Office will make a reasonable effort to contact both the victim and investigating police officers when a domestic violence case is being considered for a plea agreement. Rushlau said some officers believe that their role ends when the case goes to the prosecution - other than testifying if the case goes to trial - while others want to be kept informed of the developments in the case.
He said there are times when officers get little advanced notice of an upcoming court hearing, which gives them little time to contact the victim in the case.
There are times when victims are reluctant to testify and will avoid contact with police and prosecution. Rushlau said there have been several instances when victims have hired lawyers to speak out for their desire not to testify.
The number of protection from abuse orders filed in Rockland courts has remained steady, ranging from 185 to 213, since 2003.
Statistics maintained by the Maine Attorney General's Office on cases handled by each of the eight prosecutorial districts in Maine show that District 6, which includes the four counties overseen by Rushlau, has a higher rate of convictions for domestic violence cases than the state average.
In 2007, the conviction rate was 82 percent. The statewide average was 71 percent.
Another point of contention by New Hope for Women is the lack of use of the batterer intervention program it operates.
The organization's intervention program for batterers is called "Time for Change" and is certified by the Maine Department of Corrections. During the most recent fiscal year for New Hope, 67 people went through the program.
Natasha Plaisted, who oversees the program, and Morgan said going through the program is more comprehensive than simply being assigned to anger management counseling. The course is once a week for 48 weeks.
The goal is to hold the offenders accountable for their actions and to make them see that what they are doing amounts to oppression of women.
Morgan said in the end, the success of tackling domestic violence in the community takes a coordinated effort from many parties.

"When police, prosecutors, bail commissioners, probation officers, judges and victim services work together to give victims a clear and consistent message that their safety is of primary concern, and give a clear and consistent message to batterers that they will be held accountable to the best of the system's ability, that's when we have a chance of taking significant steps toward ending domestic violence," Morgan said.

DA Geoffrey Rushlau "Lax on Sex Crimes"

Candidate says DA's office lax on sex crimes
By Jay Davis | Sep 29, 2006

BELFAST — Twenty people charged with sex crimes in Waldo and Knox counties in the past three years are out on the street because of ineffective or absent prosecution, District Attorney candidate Joe Baiungo charged this week.
"These are the worst crimes you can commit against someone," he said. Yet too often, he continued, "[the DA's office] takes the easy way out. They've lost so many cases they're afraid to try them."
Baiungo said the 20 he is referring to were charged by police with crimes that would require them to be on the sex offender registry if they were found guilty. Some were tried and found innocent because of ineffective prosecution, he said. Others had their cases dismissed. He said others have not been charged by the DA, even though allegations against them are well known to the prosecutors.
In one instance, he said, a mother wrote a letter to the Waldo Independent earlier this year protesting the DA's refusal to prosecute a man who she claimed raped her daughter.
DA Geoff Rushlau, who is seeking re-election in November, said Tuesday the rape case wasn't prosecuted because of a name on the witness list that was presented just before the trial by the defense.
"We then developed information that that individual case could not be successfully prosecuted," he said.
He said his office goes "to trial on cases of that kind more than a lot of prosecutors. We don't [plea bargain] them on a regular basis, so it's entirely possible that we get more not-guilty verdicts, though I don't keep track."
Baiungo also said, "It's my understanding that cases came out of the [Robert] Osborne trial, with the victim mentioning other perpetrators, and the DA won't prosecute."
Osborne, who at one time was a prominent businessman and public official in the county, was tried in March on five charges of gross sexual misconduct involving a young male. He was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to 12 years in prison, all but three years suspended, this summer.
During his trial, Osborne said a Belfast man brought the victim to his home on Swan Lake and both men had sex with him. That man, who has not been charged, is mentioned many times in transcribed interviews involving Osborne and Waldo County Sheriff's Detective Greg Stearns that were obtained by VillageSoup from a non-police source. The man is also a figure in a current child custody case in Waldo County Probate Court.
The custody case involves a child of the victim in the Osborne case. The victim's petition to terminate the guardianship arrangement for his daughter is based primarily on a family relationship between the guardian and the uncharged man.
Baiungo was reluctant to discuss details of the case because it is still being investigated. But he said, "I'd hope there was a better reason for not bringing him to trial than there's no confession." Osborne confessed to having sex with the underage boy, and law enforcement officials were able to pinpoint several of the encounters that were within the statute of limitations for the crimes.
"Even if law enforcers feel there is enough evidence [to bring a good case], they aren't being prosecuted," Baiungo said. He said the victim in the Osborne case "was compelling and credible. It's my understanding that others are willing to testify as well and that police believe they have a very strong case."
Rushlau responded, "We've had strong cases with reliable witnesses and no apparent bias and still not gotten a conviction." But that hasn't stopped prosecutors from trying cases, he said.
He said he was reluctant to discuss cases that might be brought from the Osborne trial because they are being actively investigated.
Baiungo, who is listed as unenrolled on the November ballot, is challenging Republican Rushlau in the four-county district that encompasses Waldo, Knox, Lincoln and Sagadahoc counties.
He said prosecutors "decide who they will charge [with crimes]. They have a moral responsibility to take care of the community." He said he did not know if any of the 20 on his list has committed other crimes.
A reason for that is "the way the courts keep records, it's hard to say what cases aren't being prosecuted. It could be more than 20; that's my conservative number."
Rushlau asked for specifics of the cases mentioned by Baiungo. "If he has 19 more cases, I'd love to know what they are and will respond to each," he said.
Both Baiungo and Rushlau agreed sex cases can be difficult to prosecute because often there are but two witnesses and sometimes there is no physical evidence. Some cases involving minors can be too difficult for the victim, leading to a dismissal, Baiungo said.
Rushlau said, "in any criminal case we have no choice but to use direct testimony (from the victim). We can't have other people saying what happened; that's hearsay. In many of these cases we get only one chance. If by waiting, more evidence comes forward, often that's a very good thing to do."
But Baiungo said not trying sex cases unless there is a confession is the wrong approach. "I hear from people in law enforcement that (the DA's office) is afraid to try cases because they're afraid of losing. It's one thing to lose, it's another thing to give up because you're losing," he said.
"I think they've lost their edge in all areas," he continued, "and sex is the most egregious to me. I deal with the DA's office on a regular basis. I hear from other defense lawyers, police and people who work in the courts. We have an adversarial system supposedly, so when opposite sides say the same things about a public institution, there's a real problem."
Rushlau has been a prosecutor for 26 years and the DA for 13. His attorneys in Belfast, Leane Zainea and Eric Walker, have 30 years of experience between them. "We try lots of cases in this jurisdiction, and that gives us ongoing experience with what to expect from a jury," he said.

"If we find evidence for a case isn't strong, we're obliged to re-evaluate our position. That's the ethical way to behave," he said. Until he knows the details of the cases cited by Baiungo, he'll rest his case that the district has been well-served by his administration.

District Attorney Rushlau Supports Animal Abuse and Cruelty

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/09/30/politics/prosecutor-wont-charge-linda-bean-lobster-plant-for-animal-cruelty

District Attorney Rushlau Supports Animal Abuse and Cruelty
Strange revelation in light of the fact that the DA's wife, Robin Barnes Rushlau, is an "Adoption and Foster Care Coordinator" at Mainely Rat Rescue. Does Robin also believe in animal abuse?

ROCKLAND, Maine — Knox County’s top prosecutor said he will not pursue animal cruelty charges in connection with the processing of lobsters at Linda Bean’s plant in Rockland.
District Attorney Geoffrey Rushlau issued a statement Monday afternoon in response to a complaint filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA asked that Bean be investigated for possible criminal charges of cruelty to animals for the way her facility processes lobsters.
Rushlau said his research shows that the state’s animal cruelty laws never were intended to cover invertebrate species — animals without backbones.
“Because it is far from clear that the Legislature intended to include lobsters and crabs within this definition, and the opposite intention is more likely, I conclude that the conduct you describe in the materials submitted is not prosecutable under Maine’s cruelty to Animals statute,” Rushlau stated in his response to Dan Paden of PETA. “I will not ask the Rockland Police Department to conduct any additional investigation, nor file a complaint based on your investigation.”
PETA issued a statement later Monday expressing appreciation for Rushlau’s thoughtful review of the issue while disagreeing with his decision.
“We firmly believe that the law affords protection to all sentient animals, and we will be following up with him on that point and others and do not consider the matter closed,” the statement said.
PETA filed its paperwork with Rushlau and the Rockland Police Department two weeks ago.
PETA held a news conference two weeks ago to unveil a video that the organization said had been taken by an operative who obtained a full-time job at the plant and wore a camera. PETA claims the methods used at the plant are illegal because they tear sensitive animals apart while they’re alive and fully conscious. PETA also claimed that the treatment of crabs at the plant was cruel.
Bean’s attorney Stephen Hayes said he was pleased with the public release of the prosecutor’s decision.
“Geoffrey Rushlau is a highly competent and experienced prosecutor. I hope PETA accepts his independent review,” Hayes said.
Hayes reiterated that Bean’s processing plant in Rockland meets or exceeds all industry and government regulations and standards. He said the process used at the Rockland plant is nearly identical to those in all Maine and Canadian plants.
The Maine Department of Marine Resources and the Maine Lobstermen’s Association also have criticized PETA’s attack on Bean’s processing plant.
PETA issued a statement shortly after Rushlau issued his announcement.
“PETA appreciates District Attorney Rushlau’s thoughtful review of the evidence that the law covers sentient animals, which would include live, fully conscious lobsters and crabs who are ripped apart at Linda Bean’s factory, but we disagree with his decision not to prosecute because the tortured animals happen to be invertebrates,” according to the statement.
After promising to follow up, the organization stated, “In the meantime, we hope that the Maine lobster workers who decried the cruel practices caught on PETA’s video will demand quicker, less cruel deaths for these animals, such as with electric stunners, at all lobster factories — and that consumers will refuse to buy meat from animals who were made to suffer so egregiously at Linda Bean’s.”

Local District Attorney Under Investigation for Misconduct, Criminal Acts

A local district attorney has come under close scrutiny following allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and criminal acts stemming from a 2008 case in Knox County.

District Attorney Geoffrey Rushlau is being investigated by the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, which handles complaints made against Maine attorneys. DA Rushlau may also be facing criminal charges through the Maine Attorney General's Office and/or the US Attorney's Office.

Mr. Rushlau serves as the prosecutor for Knox, Waldo, Lincoln, and Sagadahoc Counties. In 2008 Mr. Rushlau prosecuted a high profile assault case in Rockland in which the defendant was facing up to 30 years in prison.

Both of the two alleged victims of that stabbing were facing serious criminal prosecutions of their own. One had been charged with three counts of Gross Sexual Assault and pled to lesser felony sexual offenses. The other alleged victim was facing indictment for a felony theft committed during his time as an employee at Bank of America in Belfast.

All of these cases were prosecuted by Mr. Rushlau's office, yet during his prosecution of the Rockland assault case, the district attorney failed to disclose this information to the defendant and his defense lawyer. Failure to disclose such information is a violation of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure and Due Process rights under the US Constitution.

Despite a potential sentence of 30 years, the defendant was sentenced to 9 months in county jail and served a significantly shorter sentence as a result of good behavior. His case is currently under appeal in the Maine Supreme Court.

The withholding of exculpatory evidence - information that may negate or mitigate the guilt of a criminal defendant - is one of the most serious forms of misconduct available to a district attorney.

It's what resulted in the disbarment and criminal charges against Mike Nifong, former North Carolina DA who prosecuted the nationally known Duke University lacrosse case. During investigation the North Carolina State Bar found that Nifong had concealed important DNA evidence that could have exonerated the Duke students from allegations of rape.

Back here in Maine, Mr. Rushlau is facing more than just charges of withheld exculpatory evidence.

The over 800-page complaint details instances of unlawful bias, violations to a defendant's constitutional rights, withheld exculpatory material, false statements, coercion, and felonious perjury on the part of Mr. Rushlau, among other points. In 2010 Mr. Rushlau wrote at least two personal letters directly to the criminal defendant and engaged in a number of phone calls with the defendant, which the defendant recorded and provided to the Board.

Recorded statements of local law enforcement officers have also revealed several discrepancies in Mr. Rushlau's prosecutions, even what may be knowing fabrications of fact and evidence tampering.

Last year the Board made a finding that the allegations, if true, would in fact substantiate serious violations to the Maine Bar Rules and Rules of Professional Conduct. After over a year of intense investigation, the complaint has been forwarded to the Grievance Commission for further consideration following a finding of probable cause by the Board.

Additionally the complaint was forwarded to the Maine Attorney General's Office, where the story becomes even more complex.

In a written statement issued August 5th, 2011, Attorney General William Schneider outlines a conflict of interest and insists that his office cannot prosecute Mr. Rushlau because his office in fact represents Mr. Rushlau.

In complaint proceedings such as this, it is common for attorneys like Mr. Rushlau to seek counsel of their own. Because Mr. Rushlau is employed by the State, the Attorney General's Office may take responsibility for  representation. This representation, however, was further complicated by another letter from the AG's Office only days later.

On August 15th, only 10 days after AG Schneider's statement, Deputy Attorney General William Stokes offered a written statement of his own. In this statement Mr. Stokes indicated that he had fully reviewed the complaint against Mr. Rushlau and determined that no criminal conduct occurred.

The Attorney General's Office has thus far refused to comment on this apparent discrepancy between two of Maine's most influential attorneys. At the very least there seems to have been a serious miscommunication between AG Schneider and Deputy AG Stokes. It is curious that Mr. Stokes would assert a position on the allegations against Mr. Rushlau if Mr. Stokes was aware that his office was already representing Mr. Rushlau. Notably, former Deputy AG Paul Stern represented Mr. Rushlau early on in this complaint. Mr. Stokes now holds that position.

Among the nearly 1,000 pages associated with this complaint is the sworn testimony of a Westbrook defense lawyer, Robert Smith. In March of this year Mr. Smith took the stand in Knox County Superior Court and testified under oath to facts that directly contradicted written statements Mr. Rushlau filed with both the Superior Court and the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar.

In particular, Mr. Rushlau had denied serious allegations of unlawful coercion involving the 2008 Rockland assault case that his office prosecuted. During appeal it was alleged that Mr. Rushlau had falsified evidence and illegally coerced the defendant's plea with threats of child pornography charges. There was in fact an investigation into Possession of Sexually Explicit Materials, but the images in question all depicted adults and the defendant was never charged in relation to those images. Nonetheless, Mr. Rushlau apparently continued to assert that the images included children and used this as one form of leverage to coerce the defendant's guilty plea to separate charges.

Yet in early 2011 Mr. Rushlau denied knowledge of this investigation and indicated he never made any statements in connection with the investigation or allegations of child porn. In a statement to the Superior Court and Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, Mr. Rushlau wrote, 'I have no memory of ever speaking to attorney Smith about child pornography, and I can think of no reason why I would.'

During his March 10th testimony this year in Superior Court, Mr. Smith stated that he did in fact discuss child porn allegation at length with Mr. Rushlau and that it was a significant aspect of two plea deals that Mr. Smith negotiated in 2008. Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hjelm found Mr. Smith's testimony to be credible, placing Mr. Rushlau's statements and credibility in a precarious position that has yet to be resolved. The Board has since contacted Mr. Smith to inquire about his availability as a witness in apprehension of a future hearing against Mr. Rushlau.

Making a false statement to the court is a crime and can be prosecuted as a felony in the State of Maine. If Mr. Rushlau is criminally charged, it's likely he will face greater consequences than an average defense attorney due to the extra responsibilities and ethical expectations of a lead prosecutor.

This is not the first time serious allegations of misconduct have been alleged against DA Rushlau. Mr. Rushlau has run into trouble as recently as this January during the high profile Waldo County trial against Randall Hofland, the 57-year-old man who held hostage a local elementary school. During that trial Hofland alleged Mr. Rushlau was withholding important evidence and preventing Hofland from accessing exculpatory material. As a result, the trial had to be delayed while Hofland collected the documents that had been kept from him. This wasted a great deal of precious court time and imposed significant additional costs on Maine taxpayers.

The district attorney is an elected official. During the very close 2006 race between DA Rushlau and DA candidate Joe Baiungo, Baiungo accused Rushlau of being soft on sex crimes and referred to twenty different local sex offense cases in which the defendants were essentially let off after committing 'the worst crimes you can commit against someone,' according to Baiungo. Baiungo asserted that these sex offenders were now free as a result of Rushlau's 'mishandling' of the cases. At that time Rushlau responded by stating that even if he believed a defendant was guilty of a crime, he would not prosecute the case if he didn't think he could win because it would be a waste of public resources.

The following year, in 2007, Kathleen Morgan, the executive director of New Hope for Women, publicly criticized Rushlau and his office for mishandling numerous domestic violence cases. In one case a man reportedly strangled his female companion in an attempt to kill her. Even though the man had a prior criminal assault record, Rushlau's office negotiated a plea agreement  in which the man only faced a misdemeanor conviction. New Hope for Women reported several other cases of serious battery against a number of women in which the perpetrators faced little to no consequences due to the district attorney's oversight.

Likewise in 2007 a gay man incarcerated at Knox County Jail became the victim of a clear hate crime after another man attacked and hospitalized him. The attacker, who had an extensive history of assault, told police that he was 'not a fag' and that the gay man had flirted with him, prompting the assault. Mr. Rushlau's office declined to prosecute the man, despite a hate crime report filed by the Knox County Sheriff's Office.

It is difficult to discern exactly what is afoot in DA Rushlau's district and who else is to blame for the numerous failures and apparent misconduct, even criminal acts, carried out behind the scenes. Because of the ambiguous nature of statements coming from the Maine Attorney General's Office and seeming unwillingness to present straightforward information about this investigation, federal authorities have been contacted and may become involved in these bizarre events.

Geoff Rushlau's future as district attorney and even his own personal freedom is unclear at this point. The pending investigation against Mr. Rushlau, both professional and criminal, is sure to require more time due to the inherent complexities of this case. The professional investigation itself has been pending for well over a year and it is unknown how long Mr. Rushlau has been engaged in the alleged misconduct and criminal acts.

Mr. Rushlau has been the District 6 prosecutorial attorney for 18 years now and has been a prosecutor for even longer. It's unknown as to how many others may have been victimized by Mr. Rushlau's abuse of power, but potential victims are encouraged to come forward and contact the Board and/or the Maine Attorney General's Office.

If you believe you have been a victim of or witnessed prosecutorial misconduct or criminal acts by DA Rushlau or his office, you may contact the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar and/or the Maine Attorney General's Office. Information about them and how to file a complaint is provided below.

A just judicial system relies on public transparency and the ability of its citizens to redress their grievances, especially where public officials are concerned. Ordinary citizens are the only defense against the abuses of public office and corrupt law enforcement.



Board of Overseers of the Bar
97 Winthrop Street
P. O. Box 527
Augusta, Maine 04332-0527

Telephone: 207-623-1121

Office of the Maine Attorney General
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333

Telephone: 207-626-8800