Washington DV Press

It’s interesting when I call up prosecutor’s who are misbehaving. Nobody is willing to step up and be accountable for thier actions. It happened with Jennifer Weiler of Thurston County and the Jeremy Kanoa Hughes case, and now its happening again with Mary N. Kellet, Assistant District Attorney/Hitwoman for Maine’s 7th district court. She’s not talking. Period.

A new rape “trial” for the Vladek Filler family has been ordered due to her misconduct up in Ellesworth, Maine where as many as 4 men per month have been indicted on multiple counts of Rape, each carrying up to 30 years in prison. The details are disturbing, especially the conduct of Ms. Kellett within the courtroom itself.

So, I contacted Micheal Povich this afternoon to get the prosecution’s side of the story. He was a likable fellow who actually brought up many good points. One of his points was burden of proof. He asked me initially if I presumed that all rape charges were innocent? I wondered in return, if he thought all rape charges were presumed guilty? He asked me  how I would decipher evidentiary accusatory material brought forth concerning rape. I simply answered him that accusations do not constitute rape. I left that statement not sure whether he was in agreement with me or not. But, he seemed to want to understandably justify his position. I was wondering if that justification was for the victims only or whether that also included the accused. Either way, I’d like to remind Mr. Povich that the system would be much more equitable if allegations of perjury were treated as equally as those of domestic violence.

Michael would not discuss this case, even though it was thrown out of court the first time that it was tried. It will be tried again, even though Ms. Kellett is trying at this moment to kill certain evidence against her “client” in the Maine Appelate courts. Why that is, is still a question to be answered. It has been my experience that those who hold public office and have something to hide, decline all offers. Mr. Povich, to his credit, did speak with me today.

So, I left Mr. Povich with one last telling question concerning accountablilty. I simply asked him if he would be willing to openly discuss this case once it has been settled. He neither declined, nor accepted, yet alluded to his answer to be in line of “slimy lawyers” as his excuse. I certainly hope that it is not an excuse. I equally hope that he will accept my offer as I will be following this case to its conclusion. At that point, I will again contact Mr. Povich and it should then be clear as to the motives of what kind of office he is running up there. One that will stonewall public answers, or one that is accountable to their public.