No private case intake: do not send child names, sealed records, private allegations, or confidential files through public campaign links. Privacy boundarySafety first
Site boundary: JTforME is the campaign, public-record, citizen-initiative, and Maine family-help routing hub. For volunteer-only public education, printable tools, and research/source materials, use FOCaF.
This independent page compares the grievance that was submitted, the disposition that followed, and the Maine Bar Rules governing investigation and public-member review.
It separates complainant allegations, Board correspondence, governing rules, and public commentary. It does not claim a disciplinary finding and does not ask readers to accept a summary without opening the linked documents.
The May 2026 packet described the earlier GCF-25-524 matter, then expressly presented GCF 26-240 as a new complaint based on post-dismissal and continuing conduct. The public-accountability issue is whether the July 21 disposition analyzed that new scope on its own terms.
The May 25 packet described the prior grievance as raising earlier allegations involving unsupported factual assertions, procedure, implementation friction, and record-shaping through the earlier record.
Public question:What was investigated and decided in that earlier file, and what remained outside it?
The May 15 complaint, May 25 official form, and supplemental addendum said the new filing concerned post-dismissal and continuing conduct, including events after the February 11 order, with additional implementation, records-access, counseling, school, filing, and appellate-record issues.
Express request:“Open and maintain matter 26-240 as a new grievance, not merely an administrative supplement to the prior dismissed matter.”
“I am not asking the Board to decide custody, parenting time, child support, the pending appeals, or any merits issue reserved to a court.”
The July 21 dismissal acknowledged that written limitation and then stated that re-litigation was nevertheless the action sought.
Professional-conduct investigation only; court merits expressly excluded.
Characterized the request as re-litigation of PFA and family matters.
How did the express limitation become a re-litigation request?
Counsel-specific candor, fairness, record-shaping, implementation, and procedural-conduct theories.
Primarily framed the submission as blame for the client’s conduct and an effort to impute it to counsel.
Which counsel-specific allegations were separately analyzed?
A 39-page packet, source maps, timelines, filings, service records, named witnesses, and an offer of native materials.
Did not identify which attachments, pages, source records, or witnesses were reviewed.
What was opened, requested, contacted, or verified?
Requested substantial investigation, native-source review, and consideration of Glenn Anderson and Daniel Pierce.
Used the term “grievance investigation” but did not describe investigative steps in the dismissal letter.
What occurred beyond paper review and characterization?
This comparison does not prove motive or misconduct. It identifies a visible source conflict that warrants an accurate, independent explanation.
Anderson wrote directly to the presiding judge after reviewing Bedard’s December 29, 2025 Motion in Limine. He said he felt compelled to bring “the inaccuracies contained in the Motion in Limine” to the court’s attention.
He identified omitted later appointments in 2018 and 2019 and rejected the implication that his involvement was limited to an appointment more than a decade earlier.
The 26-240 packet named Anderson as a witness or source. Was he contacted? Was the January 6 letter reviewed? Was Bedard asked to explain the factual basis for the motion and any correction made after the letter?
The absence of those details from a short dismissal letter does not establish that no internal work occurred. It does establish that the public-facing disposition does not make that work independently verifiable.
The Judicial Branch describes the Board as the body created to regulate lawyer conduct, enforce the Maine Bar Rules and Rules of Professional Conduct, and appoint Bar Counsel and the Grievance Commission.
Official Judicial Branch descriptionCurrent published Rule 13 provides that Bar Counsel conducts investigations when allegations, if true, could constitute misconduct and states that reasons for a disposition must be given in writing.
Official Rule 13Published Rule 9(e) gives a public member authority to approve a dismissal or disapprove it and direct further investigation.
Official Rule 9(e)The Board’s published rules provide special routing or independent authority when a complaint concerns an attorney employed in the office of Bar Counsel, Bar Counsel, the Board Clerk, or a Board member.
Official direct-routing ruleOfficial Special Counsel ruleThe letter dismissed GCF 26-240 and advised that a written request for public-member review could be made within 21 days.
The supplied private-review packet contains a dated, unequivocal request invoking public non-attorney review. This page does not claim transmission confirmation that has not been published.
The packet also contains a separate draft grievance and preservation demand focused on the alleged material recasting of GCF 26-240. That draft is not published here as a filed or decided matter.
Meaningful independence requires a reviewer who did not participate in the first disposition, access to the complete native record, a line-by-line comparison, preservation of drafts and audit history, and a written explanation that addresses the actual allegations rather than a simplified substitute.
Public-redacted nine-page submission presenting GCF 26-240 as a new post-dismissal grievance. It expressly excludes custody, parenting-time, and appellate-merits adjudication. Allegations are not findings.
Open PDFPublic-redacted two-page addendum requesting a substantial, record-specific professional-conduct investigation. Allegations are not findings.
Open PDFFull side-by-side exhibit with source excerpts and focused review questions. Prepared by the complainant; it does not determine intent or misconduct.
Open PDFPublic-safe excerpt showing how the May 2026 submission distinguished 26-240 from GCF-25-524 and limited the requested review to attorney conduct.
Open PDFCondensed issue matrix covering scope, attorney conduct, facts and rules, evidence, and the claimed investigation.
Open PDFTwo-page photographic record with the complainant’s home address removed for public release.
Open PDFBoard letter acknowledging July communications and instructing the complainant not to submit additional information while review was pending. Home address removed.
Open PDFFormer GAL’s letter identifying “inaccuracies” and omitted later appointments in Bedard’s Motion in Limine.
Open PDFWhat is published, what is withheld, the source categories, and the privacy boundary.
Open PDFThe complete 39-page packet is not published because it contains home and contact information, date of birth, child and school/provider details, and extensive family-court material. The page instead links public-redacted primary submissions and a public-safe verification set.
The complete commentary archive keeps public-policy argument, research-backed analysis, satire, and first-person perspective in a separate lane from Board correspondence and grievance evidence.
Open Articles & Public Commentary · Read “Our Public Servants—The Great Heroes of Our Society”Justin Tahai’s LinkedIn commentary places the accountability work in a broader civic-reform frame. It is advocacy and opinion, not Board correspondence, evidence in GCF 26-240, or a disciplinary finding.
Read the LinkedIn articleCorrections are invited by exact sentence and source. A response may identify documents reviewed, investigative steps taken, the factual basis for treating the matter as re-litigation, the distinction drawn between GCF-25-524 and 26-240, or any material fact this page states incorrectly.
This page will distinguish a documented correction from a disagreement over interpretation. It will not present a complaint, dismissal, or public criticism as a misconduct finding that does not exist.
No adverse inference is drawn from silence, disagreement, or the brevity of a disposition. The page asks only that material record conflicts be answered with the complete record and the applicable rules.