A word about “MADANNOUNCER”
aka “the sequel” to
The Ethics of Judge Nadeau
One of the greatest tools in the sociopath’s arsenal is deflection. I have never seen anyone use this tool as effectively as Robert Nadeau.
For example, in the bar complaint I filed against him for ethics violations, I included, as exhibits, correspondence from Nadeau to the opposing party of his former client’s case, where he was offering to help in that same matter he had been representing that former client in. I also sent copies of correspondence that Nadeau sent to me, offering $31,000 to a witness in a proceeding against him. In that same correspondence, he advised that witness not to tell her attorneys about his offer. This occurred within a week of Nadeau’s being publicly reprimanded for other attempts to contact persons who were represented by counsel.
In Nadeau’s response to my bar complaint, he did exactly what he is doing now, on his anonymous website he calls “MADANNOUNCER” (which he has recently attributed to his wife). Instead of addressing the serious ethical violations I charge him with, he uses two very effective methods of deflection. The first method is one I like to call ‘poisoning the well.’ Simply put, he slanders his accuser. In the case of my bar complaint, he told the Bar that there was a ‘criminal investigation’ being conducted on me for ‘hacking’ and ‘larceny.’ There has never, to date, been any such investigation. He added further confusion by claiming that my ‘illegally gotten’ evidence had already been reviewed by the Bar in an earlier complaint and dismissed. Since much of the correspondence in question had occurred after that earlier Bar review, this claim was an impossibility.
But it worked. The Board of Overseers of the Bar dismissed my bar complaint without a hearing or an investigation.
This poisoning of the well has been extremely effective for Nadeau over the years. Anyone who has ever gone up against him has experienced it. But it doesn’t stop there. His second method of deflection is something I like to call ‘the superhero complex.’ After undermining his accusers and their evidence, he turns their attempts to hold him accountable into a victory.
Nadeau has, for example, brandished the Bar’s dismissal of my complaint many times over the years—not just an exoneration of the claims I had made against him, but as an endorsement of his upstanding ethics! Another good example of this is how he turned his retaliatory actions against the York County commissioners for not giving him the increased hours (and double salary) he needed because he law firm was ‘in ruins,’ into a crusade to ‘provide better services’ for the people of York! After all the chaos and inconvenience he caused court workers, attorneys and the people of York with those retaliatory schedule changes, Nadeau actually had the audacity to claim that the reason he withdrew his claims against me in his defamation case was because he didn’t want to inconvenience the people of York by rescheduling the extra two days of court it would’ve taken to make his case!
The Ethics of Judge Nadeau is my attempt to hold Judge Nadeau accountable for behavior that I believe is harming the judicial system, the legal profession and the people of York County. This attempt to warn the public is a last resort that comes in the wake of significant negligence on the part of the judges, lawyer and overseers in and around the county of York, Maine.
From the beginning, I have made it clear that I would immediately retract any statement if presented with evidence that it wasn’t true. No such evidence has been presented. After over five years of heavy litigation in two separate lawsuits, Nadeau has yet to produce evidence of a defamatory statement authored by me.
I hope this sets the record straight.