By: Ryan Michaels | The Maine Mirror | September 18, 2026

BIDDEFORD, Maine — This story is not based on a single frustrating visit, a disputed recollection, or one isolated comment.

It is about what emerges when months of recorded interactions, written requests, law-enforcement footage, contemporaneous documentation, follow-up emails, and subsequent public-records responses are placed next to one another.

The events documented here begin March 11, 2025, and continue through September and October of that year. But the paper trail did not end when I walked out of the Biddeford office. Correspondence preserved afterward shows that I continued seeking an explanation into 2026.

At the center are two people working under the same Maine Department of Health and Human Services roof: the Biddeford building manager and Amy Cilley, an Assistant Program Administrator associated with the Office of Child and Family Services.

Their roles are different. That distinction matters. The building manager repeatedly indicated that OCFS was not her department, while Cilley’s role placed her within the program involved in the underlying dispute.

But the recordings raise a larger question that transcends organizational charts:

What happens when a member of the public repeatedly asks a government agency for answers, while consequential statements about that person are simultaneously being communicated to law enforcement—and repeated attempts to obtain clarification appear to lead from one person to another without a substantive resolution?

The Maine Mirror is publishing not only excerpts of the recordings, but also the written documents I physically brought to the Biddeford office and correspondence showing what I did afterward.

Readers therefore do not have to rely solely on my recollection.

They can examine the record.

March 11: “Then They’ll Yell at Me”

On March 11, 2025, I went to the Biddeford DHHS office attempting to speak with leadership regarding a longstanding dispute involving OCFS.

During a private conversation, the building manager told me:

“Nobody’s around the building anyways.”

Later in that same conversation, as I explained what had brought me there, she made another statement:

“Listen, I don’t wanna get involved in your stuff because then they’ll yell at me for it.”

The significance of that statement should not be exaggerated—but neither should it be ignored.

The building manager did not identify who “they” were, why they would yell at her, or whether she had actually been instructed not to speak with me.

What the recording establishes is simpler:

Those were the words she used.

That distinction becomes important later.

What Was Said After I Left

The March 11 record does not end when I walked out of the building.

A witness subsequently told responding law enforcement:

“They told him that there was nobody that was gonna talk to him today or any day.”

The witness added:

“Obviously he got upset. Yeah. I would have too.”

During another exchange with law enforcement, the building manager described me as having tattoos, light facial hair and brown hair.

She also described me as:

“Kinda harmless.”

Meanwhile, a substantially different characterization was being provided to police by Cilley.

“He Doesn’t Appear to Be in Touch With Reality”

Cilley’s recorded statements to law enforcement deserve particular scrutiny because they were made in the context of discussing another no-trespass order.

She told the officer:

“He’s very escalated in that, um, he doesn’t appear to be in touch with reality right now.”

She subsequently said:

“He’s not well.”

Cilley also questioned whether something was occurring mentally that was contributing to what she characterized as escalating behavior.

Those are consequential statements.

I strongly dispute that characterization and other allegations communicated about me. The recordings provide evidence with which readers can evaluate portions of that dispute themselves.

But responsible reporting requires an important limitation: the available recordings do not establish what Cilley subjectively believed, everything she knew at the time, or her motivation for making those statements.

They do establish what she said to law enforcement.

That is precisely why the underlying recordings matter.

Rather than asking readers to accept my description of whether I appeared disconnected from reality, aggressive, unreasonable, or dangerous, I am providing the interactions themselves.

Watch me. Listen to me. Listen to them. Then decide what the evidence shows.

September 15: I Returned With a Written Request

Six months later, after the no-trespass order had expired, I returned to Biddeford DHHS.

This time, I did not simply walk into the building asking questions. I brought a written request specifically addressed to Maine DHHS/OCFS leadership.

The document states that the March 11 no-trespass order had expired September 14 and that I was requesting a meeting concerning why it had been issued.

It asked for something concrete: a time, date and location for a meeting, along with the name and title of the person who would meet with me.

The second page was intentionally designed to create a record either way. DHHS could provide meeting information and acknowledge the document, or, if staff declined, I could document that outcome.

(DOCUMENT 1 — September 15, 2025: “Formal Meeting Request — Biddeford DHHS.” Two-page document hand-delivered to Maine DHHS/OCFS leadership requesting a meeting concerning the expired March 11 no-trespass order. It requests a meeting date, time, location, and the name and title of the person who would meet with me. Page two contains spaces for a DHHS response and acknowledgment, followed by a section for documenting a refusal. Full document displayed below.)

During the September 15 interaction, the building manager went to seek information from others in the building.

When she returned, she said:

“They weren’t too happy that I poked my head in.”

Again, that statement does not tell us precisely who “they” were or why they were unhappy.

But once again, it was recorded.

Viewed beside her March statement about being concerned that “they’ll yell at me,” it raises a legitimate question about the environment surrounding attempts to communicate with me.

September 16: Putting the Dispute in Writing

The following day, I returned with another written document.

This one directly addressed what I considered mischaracterizations made to law enforcement on March 11.

Importantly, the document shows exactly how I represented my intentions before seeking another response.

I wrote that I was there “calmly, respectfully, and only to seek clarification.”

I explicitly stated:

“This is not a confrontation.”

The document asked whether Cilley, a supervisor, or another staff member would provide input.

It also memorialized my dispute with statements that had been made about me, including the description that I appeared “out of touch with reality.”

At the end, I asked staff to sign or initial merely to confirm receipt. Crucially, the document expressly said that declining was acceptable and that I would simply note the refusal.

The retained second page contains my handwritten notation:

“refused to sign/took paperwork.”

That handwritten notation represents my contemporaneous documentation of what occurred. Standing alone, it is not independent proof that staff refused.

But the interaction was also recorded.

The document and recording can therefore be considered together rather than requiring readers to choose between competing recollections.

(DOCUMENT 2 — September 16, 2025: “Request for Clarification — Mischaracterization of Disability & False Narrative.” Two-page document hand-delivered after earlier attempts to obtain a response. It expressly states that I was there calmly and respectfully, describes the March 11 statements I disputed, requests acknowledgment of receipt, and contains my contemporaneous handwritten notation that staff “refused to sign/took paperwork.” Full document displayed below.)

When Recorded Words Become Disputed Words

The September interactions produced another important piece of the chronology.

During subsequent conversations, the building manager disputed statements attributed to her.

Among her recorded responses were:

“I never said that. I never said no one was here.”

“Not yelling at me.”

And:

“No, they weren’t my words.”

That creates a straightforward evidentiary question:

What did she actually say?

Fortunately, nobody needs to depend upon my memory—or hers.

The March 11 conversation was recorded.

The earlier recording contains the building manager saying:

“Nobody’s around the building anyways.”

It also contains:

“I don’t wanna get involved in your stuff because then they’ll yell at me for it.”

I experienced the later denials as gaslighting: being told that something I remembered hearing had not actually been said.

But “gaslighting” can imply an intentional effort to manipulate another person’s perception, and the recordings alone cannot establish another person’s subjective intent.

The more important point is therefore not the label.

It is the recorded discrepancy.

The accompanying video places the statements together so viewers can hear both for themselves.

“This Is Not My Department”

The building manager also repeatedly emphasized an important distinction:

OCFS was not her department.

There is nothing inherently contradictory about that. DHHS encompasses different programs and functions, and a building manager does not necessarily have authority over OCFS matters merely because OCFS employees work in the same facility.

But that distinction does not erase what occurred under the same roof.

Cilley—an OCFS administrator—was among the people working within that building.

The building manager was the person with whom I repeatedly interacted while attempting to navigate the facility and determine who could address my concerns.

That creates an access question regardless of which box each employee occupies on an organizational chart:

If the person standing in front of me cannot help, who can?

That is the question I continued trying to answer.

“Contact Jill Hunter”

Eventually, I was directed elsewhere.

I was told to contact Jill Hunter.

So I did.

The written statement I subsequently brought back to Biddeford DHHS on October 24 records what happened next from my perspective.

According to that letter, I followed the direction I had been given, contacted Hunter, included supporting documentation and waited.

I wrote:

“To this day, I have not received one.”

So I returned again.

The October 24 letter says I was requesting further guidance about how to speak with someone willing to provide clarification concerning March 11 and attempting to establish “a clear and open line of communication moving forward.”

It also explicitly describes my intentions as “peaceful, professional, and transparent” and says I was not there for confrontation.

Again, I built an acknowledgment procedure directly into the document.

I requested a date stamp, initials, or a brief written acknowledgment. And I wrote in advance that if staff would not provide one, “I will simply document the delivery myself for transparency purposes.”

That becomes particularly important when considering what happened next.

October 24: “Whatever You’ve Got”

The October 24 interaction was remarkably short.

I approached the building manager with the correspondence.

She declined to engage.

I asked what she did not want to be involved with.

Her answer was:

“Whatever you’ve got.”

The accompanying video captures the interaction itself, including what occurred at the front-desk window. Readers should watch that footage directly rather than rely solely upon my description of the physical interaction.

The physical document provides another piece of the record.

On page two, immediately beneath the language requesting acknowledgment, my retained copy contains a handwritten contemporaneous notation stating that the Biddeford DHHS building manager refused to sign and that I delivered an exact copy directly to her at approximately 1:30 p.m.

Again, that handwriting is my documentation of the event, not independent proof of its own contents.

That is precisely why publishing the document alongside the corresponding video matters.

One shows what I brought into the building and what I documented afterward.

The other allows viewers to observe the interaction themselves.

(DOCUMENT 3 — October 24, 2025: “Biddeford DHHS Refused Delivery Record.” Two-page written statement documenting my return after following the direction to contact Jill Hunter and, according to the letter, receiving no response. It requests further guidance and acknowledgment of receipt. Page two contains my contemporaneous handwritten account that the building manager refused to sign and that I personally delivered an exact copy to her at approximately 1:30 p.m. Full document displayed below.)

The Paper Trail Continued After October 24

October 24 did not end my attempt to obtain an answer.

That evening, I sent a written notice documenting what I said had occurred at the Biddeford office. The email was distributed broadly to government officials and others, reported my account that the building manager had declined to accept or acknowledge the written statement, referenced video evidence, and attached the October 24 document.

That matters because it created a contemporaneous electronic record outside the handwritten notation on the document itself.

The correspondence did not stop there.

A December 1 follow-up reproduced in the same email chain states that I still had not received acknowledgment, clarification, or a response from DHHS or related leadership concerning the matter. I again requested acknowledgment, designation of someone willing to communicate directly, and confirmation of an oversight review.

Then, in June 2026, I returned to the issue after receiving a DHHS public-records response.

The June correspondence says the Department’s FOAA response reported “No records” responsive to my requests concerning October 24, including visitor records, hand-delivered documents and related records.

My email asked how that result could be reconciled with evidence I had preserved: the contemporaneous October 24 email, the written statement itself, my documentation of delivery, and video of the encounter.

The correspondence also raised another comparison. According to my June email, the same FOAA production showed that DHHS had retained records relating to another routine document delivery on March 10, 2026, including an electronic case note and the document delivered that day.

That led me to ask:

“Why were records apparently retained for some routine document deliveries but not others?”

That is a question—not a conclusion.

The correspondence does not, standing alone, establish why DHHS reported no responsive records, whether records were required to exist under a particular retention policy, whether different DHHS divisions maintained separate records, or whether anything was destroyed or improperly withheld.

It establishes something narrower: I documented the October encounter by email the same day, followed up again, later received what I described as a “no records” response, and then expressly asked DHHS to reconcile that response with the contemporaneous evidence I had retained.

Another Detail in the Recipient List

While assembling the documents for this article and reviewing the email chain again, I noticed another detail that deserves to be preserved as part of the record.

Among the numerous recipients appearing on portions of the correspondence are Maine Rep. Thomas Lavigne and Berwick Police Chief Timothy Towne. The October 24 recipient list displayed in the document includes legislative and Berwick municipal addresses associated with both men.

Lavigne currently represents Maine House District 148, including Berwick and North Berwick. (Maine State Legislature)

Their appearance on these emails is potentially relevant because both men have subsequently appeared in separate Maine Mirror reporting concerning my attempts to obtain answers and accountability from public officials. In August 2026, The Maine Mirror documented an intersection involving Lavigne and Towne while expressly cautioning that the available evidence did not establish that Towne influenced Lavigne’s treatment of me or that the two coordinated regarding me. (The Maine Mirror)

The same evidentiary restraint applies here.

The fact that addresses associated with Lavigne and Towne appear on these communications does not establish that either man read every message, discussed the DHHS matter, agreed with my allegations, communicated with DHHS about me, influenced anyone’s actions, or had a legal obligation to intervene.

What the document establishes is considerably narrower:

These communications were sent to email addresses associated with both men.

That matters as a question of notice and chronology. It preserves another documented intersection between records that, when originally created, were not necessarily being viewed as parts of the same broader reporting picture.

Whether that intersection ultimately means anything more remains an open question.

It should not be made to prove more than it proves.

But neither should a documented connection be omitted simply because its significance is not yet known.

(DOCUMENT 4 — October 24, 2025 through June 25, 2026: “Biddeford DHHS Follow-Up Email Chain and Records Discrepancy.” Five-page compilation preserving the October 24 email sent after the Biddeford encounter, a December 1 follow-up reporting that no acknowledgment or clarification had been received, and a June 25, 2026 correspondence questioning how a subsequent DHHS FOAA “no records” response concerning the October 24 visit could be reconciled with the contemporaneous email, attached document, delivery documentation, and video evidence. The correspondence also raises questions about differing records retention between documented visits. The displayed recipient lists include, among numerous recipients, email addresses associated with Rep. Thomas Lavigne and Berwick Police Chief Timothy Towne. Their inclusion establishes receipt addresses on the correspondence, not that either person read, acted upon, or discussed the messages. Full correspondence displayed below.)

The Concern Is the Accumulation

Any individual moment in this story can be viewed in isolation.

An employee doesn’t know the answer.

Someone is in a meeting.

A building manager doesn’t oversee OCFS.

Someone gets referred to another employee.

Someone declines to sign a document.

Someone describes a person’s behavior differently than that person describes himself.

A records search later produces no responsive documents.

A public official appears among many recipients of an email.

Each circumstance could potentially have an ordinary explanation.

But accountability also requires examining the complete record rather than separating every event from everything that preceded and followed it.

On March 11, I was told nobody was around and that the building manager did not want to become involved because “they’ll yell at me.”

Afterward, a witness told police that nobody was going to speak with me “today or any day.”

Cilley subsequently described me to law enforcement as appearing “out of touch with reality” and “not well.”

Months later, when I returned seeking clarification, the building manager said people “weren’t too happy” that she had approached them.

I returned with written requests.

I sought acknowledgment.

I documented the results.

I followed the referral I was given.

According to my October correspondence, that referral produced no response.

I came back again.

I documented that encounter on video, on the physical document, and in an email sent that same day.

That email was distributed broadly, including to addresses associated with officials who would later surface independently in other Maine Mirror reporting.

I followed up again.

And months later, when a public-records response reportedly produced no responsive records concerning the October visit, I asked DHHS to explain how that result could be reconciled with the evidence I had retained.

That progression—not any single sentence, email recipient, employee, or encounter—is the concern documented here.

A Question Bigger Than One Person

I have personal stakes in this.

My underlying dispute with OCFS involves my family, and I have spent years seeking answers concerning decisions I believe profoundly affected my parental relationship.

Readers should know that perspective because transparency applies to journalists, too.

I am not pretending to be a detached observer of events that happened to someone else.

I am both the person depicted in these recordings and the publisher presenting them.

That makes primary-source transparency especially important.

I cannot independently declare from these materials that every disputed allegation was knowingly false.

I cannot establish another person’s private intentions.

I cannot conclude from a “no records” response alone that records were destroyed, improperly withheld, or should necessarily have existed.

And I cannot treat someone’s presence on an email recipient list as evidence that the person read the message, agreed with it, acted upon it, or coordinated with anyone else.

Nor does disagreement with me, refusing a meeting, refusing to sign my paperwork, or referring me elsewhere automatically establish misconduct.

What I can do is preserve the record.

What I can do is publish what was actually said.

What I can do is publish the documents I actually carried into the building.

What I can do is show the contemporaneous correspondence that followed.

And what I can do is distinguish between what the evidence demonstrates, what I experienced, and what remains unanswered.

The documents reproduced throughout this article are especially important for that reason. They show what I was requesting at each stage and what I subsequently reported. The recordings allow readers to evaluate the interactions themselves.

That leaves a public-interest question worthy of an answer:

How did repeated attempts to obtain substantive communication progress from the March encounter, to law-enforcement involvement, to written meeting requests, to referrals, to disputed recollections, to the October encounter—and ultimately to a later public-records dispute over whether records of that visit existed?

Watch the Record. Read the Documents. Then Decide.

The accompanying video contains approximately five minutes of excerpts spanning four dates:

March 11, 2025.
September 15, 2025.
September 16, 2025.
October 24, 2025.

The documents reproduced throughout this article extend that chronology beyond the recordings.

Readers should not accept my conclusions simply because I wrote this article.

Listen to the building manager.

Listen to Cilley.

Listen to the witness.

Listen to me.

Then read what I actually submitted.

Read what I documented afterward.

Compare the statements across time.

Compare the documents with the recorded encounters.

Consider the later correspondence.

And distinguish what has been established from what still requires an explanation.

Then draw your own conclusions.

The Maine Mirror welcomes a response from Maine DHHS, the Biddeford office, Cilley, the building manager, Hunter, Lavigne, Towne, or any other individual or agency whose actions or correspondence are discussed here. Any substantive response will be reviewed for inclusion or publication so the public can evaluate that information alongside the existing record.

When the recordings, documents, emails, and government records can be placed side by side, the public does not have to choose whose memory to trust. It can examine the record for itself.