Justin Tahai’s first-person account of counsel’s role in Maine family litigation: dated documents, disputed positions, the responses, and the questions still requiring an answer.
Who this record concerns. Patrick S. Bedard’s official profile identifies an Eliot, Maine attorney practicing in Maine and New Hampshire since 1988, including divorce work. The firm’s website uses both Law Office of Patrick S. Bedard, P.C. and Bedard & Bobrow branding. This page is published by an opposing litigant, not by the firm. Official attorney profile ↗ · Official firm page ↗
The ringmaster can cue the adjectives, the pressure, and the next procedural act. The page now carries a real physics-driven pinball table and a second circus dunk tank before the source record continues.
Interactive editorial circus · real browser pinball
Bedard’s Inaccuracy Pinball
A complete three-ball table sits directly on the record page: plunger, ball physics, active flippers, bumpers, CANDOR drop targets, multiball, nudge and tilt, a classic-circus toggle, and the intentionally misspelled LUDACRISLY INACCURANT BEDARD FLIPPERS™.
JavaScript loads the playable pinball cabinet here. The source-linked record remains readable without the optional game.
Boundary: The approved clown-treated portrait sprites, named filing scraps, circus labels, and game dialogue are editorial commentary. They do not establish a disciplinary finding, diagnosis, or adjudicated fact. Continue to the dated record below for the evidence and limits.
Second circus attraction · copied physics booth
The Inaccuracy Dunk Tank
The same three-ball skill game now appears in Bedard’s circus as a second independent mount. The mechanics are unchanged; the visible booth copy is reframed around inaccuracy, the record, and the big top.
Two instances, one engine: this circus copy and the original “Drowning in Shelfishness” booth use the same tested JavaScript component. Completing either preserves the existing arcade progress without double-awarding the same game.
EDITORIAL SATIRE, NOT EVIDENCE. Drowning in Inaccuracy is original editorial satire using a generic circus figure, not a likeness or photograph. The game illustrates the publication’s stated themes of responsibility-shifting, adult implementation, and record accountability. It is not a diagnosis, judicial finding, or claim of literal conduct beyond the cited source record.
Guest heckler: user-supplied editorial clown artwork. “INACCURACY!” is fictional game dialogue, not a quotation or recording of any person.
A LITTLE TIMING. A LOT OF SPLASH.
One button. Three chances.
Watch both meters. Aim and power race at different speeds. Wait for them to meet their center diamonds together.
Press THROW once. The button freezes BOTH meters at that instant and launches one ball. There is no separate aim lock.
Three balls. That is it. Each throw gets faster. Three misses end the game. Consecutive dunks multiply points; replay starts a new three-ball game.
Prefer an untimed game? Turn on Practice assist and set both sliders to 50. This also works with a screen reader.
Space / Enter play · R restart game · M sound · Esc close. Shortcuts only apply while focused inside this game.
Reset session resets this visit only. Your best score and existing arcade progress are kept.
Latest update · August 28, 2026
An objection arrived about seventeen minutes before counseling.
The automatic service notice identifies Patrick Bedard as the filer of an objection to Tahai’s sanctions request. The forwarded reminder had already identified the 11:00 a.m. appointment. The sequence is documented; intent and therapeutic impact are separate questions.
Submission display10:42a.m.
Tyler’s notice lists the objection as submitted.
Email received10:43:24a.m.
Service-notice time, normalized to Eastern Time.
Scheduled session11:00a.m.
The appointment time in the forwarded reminder.
The email-to-appointment interval is 16 minutes, 36 seconds—about 17 minutes, not the initial estimate of five. Tyler prints “EST” in its submission display; the email’s 14:43:24 UTC timestamp is 10:43:24 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Appointment notice is not proof of actual attendance.
Nonemergency litigation papers should not intrude on the final minutes before a known reunification session. His submitted reply seeks a reciprocal prospective safeguard, with exceptions for emergencies, deadlines, and unavoidable circumstances.
Requested—not ordered. The sources reviewed do not show that the court has granted that safeguard or found bad faith from the timing.
Procedural context: The objection opposed an earlier sanctions request. It preceded Tahai’s challenge to the timing of its own service. This page does not treat it as a failure to answer evidence raised afterward. Read the objection’s substantive paragraph ↗
Evidence before characterization
Three records worth reading in full.
01
Dated letter · January 6, 2026
A former GAL identified omitted later appointments.
Glenn R. Anderson wrote to the presiding judge that Bedard’s motion in limine contained inaccuracies in describing his earlier involvement. He identified additional appointments in March 2018 and December 2019.
The limit is in the same letter. Anderson acknowledged he had no current appointment under the pending motions and took no position on admissibility or relevance. The letter is evidence of what Anderson reported—not a judicial finding of intentional misrepresentation.
Counsel exchange + native Gmail · June 11–27, 2025
A warning about lost counseling opportunities—and an “over 48 hours” claim the native record does not support.
At 12:38 p.m., Amanda Ramirez conveyed her client’s concerns to Bedard about slow responses, lost counseling opportunities, and appointments canceled without Tahai’s knowledge. She asked that his client meaningfully engage.
Bedard answered at 12:52 p.m. He relayed his client’s competing account: Mondays had not been agreed for that month, one Friday had been rescheduled with “over 48 hours notice,” and weekly rather than twice-weekly sessions were expected.
The native Gmail timing does not support that 48-hour assertion. Morse’s first located written notice was sent at 9:08:12 p.m. on June 11 for a June 13 appointment at 1:00 p.m.—39 hours, 51 minutes, and 48 seconds in advance, or 8 hours, 8 minutes, and 12 seconds short of 48 hours. No earlier written notice was located in the retained Gmail account; an earlier oral notice or a message outside that account cannot be ruled out.
This establishes a contemporaneous dispute and counsel’s notice. Ramirez’s email is not independent verification of every event her client reported, but the native timestamp supplies a direct check on the later “over 48 hours” characterization.
“Baseless” is counsel’s characterization, not a ruling.
Morse’s objection calls Tahai’s request “yet another baseless filing,” asserts that it lacks support, incorporates her earlier sanctions motion, and refers to a forthcoming reply. Tahai disputes that characterization.
Incorporation must be considered with the actual earlier filing. Neither the objection nor Tahai’s response becomes an adjudicated finding merely because it is submitted.
The supplied registry chronology begins with the 2010 case and identifies January 18, 2011 as its first Bedard-attributed retained-attorney entry. It does not attribute the case’s opening months to him.
Restrictions, then intermittent therapeutic contact
The February 11 order recounts temporary protection orders and therapy-based contact. It states that work with Daniel Pierce began in April 2025. This was not two uninterrupted years of therapy; precise attendance requires provider records.
Counsel raises implementation concerns; native email checks the response
Ramirez asks Bedard to address cooperation and lost opportunities. Bedard supplies his client’s response, including an “over 48 hours notice” assertion. The first located written notice was 39 hours, 51 minutes, and 48 seconds before the appointment. Both positions and the evidentiary limit are retained.
The order requires weekly joint therapy and provides an opportunity for reasonable daily electronic contact. In-person progression is conditional on compliance with identified provisions and respects the child’s schedule and wishes. Tahai challenges the order and disputes subsequent implementation.
The supplied record preserves the mother’s “sole gatekeeper” reading, Tahai’s disagreement, scheduling disputes, and counsel’s denial that litigation narratives came from his client or her family. The source summaries do not settle those competing accounts.
Tahai submits a reply and a motion seeking leave to add material identifying Ramirez as a potential fact and authentication witness. Submission receipts establish filing activity, not court acceptance, admissibility, or Ramirez’s agreement to testify.
The February 11 order includes abuse findings against Tahai, which he disputes, and conditions on contact. This publication does not erase those findings or characterize every restriction as counsel’s invention.
The historical record also includes nonopposition to mediation, scheduling cooperation, file-access requests, and denials of allegations. Routine service is not automatically obstruction.
The archive identifies GCF-25-524 and 26-240 and retains disposition materials. A complaint or referral is not proof; a dismissal must be read on its own terms.
Maine’s Indorf v. Keep, 2023 ME 11, ¶¶ 17–18, limits inherent-authority fee sanctions to extraordinary circumstances with clear abuse of the litigation process. A disputed timestamp alone does not establish that threshold.
Aggressive advocacy is not the end of the inquiry.
The firm’s public mission statement promises aggressive representation. Tahai’s criticism is about how professional judgment is exercised in a case involving a child—not a claim that advertising itself proves misconduct.
It was never for myself. Always for him.
That is Tahai’s stated purpose for pursuing contact, therapy, records access, and timely review. Whether any particular request has legal merit remains for the court to decide.
The linked LinkedIn post is the author-supplied publication link. The complete article is also readable here without a social-media account.
Preserved, not overwritten
The full historical archive remains available.
The previous page’s source-linked text, timelines, evidence tables, and counter-record are preserved on a separate archive page. These counts describe the supplied archive—not findings of wrongdoing.
Identify the sentence, the source that contradicts it, and the correction requested. Factual corrections and material responses belong beside the claim—not behind a generic denial. Disagreement with an opinion will be identified as disagreement.
August 28 editorial update: corrected the initial five-minute estimate; distinguished submitted requests from court orders; included Bedard’s June 2025 response; clarified that notice through counsel is not independent proof of every alleged event; retained the court’s safety findings and contact conditions.
Two source-linked reports on six Maine legal and judicial professionals. Read the affiliation maps, the original PDFs and the records still missing. An institutional connection is not a finding of friendship, improper influence or misconduct.
