By Ryan Michaels | The Maine Mirror | September 26, 2026

On September 17, an anonymous participant in the Facebook group North Berwick • Berwick • Lebanon Community made serious allegations about my disability, veterans’ benefits and children. That morning, I asked Chelsea, one of the group’s two administrators, whether she would help me find out who had posted it. She said she would check with the other administrator, Aaron Condon.

At 11:53 a.m. that same day, I published footage of my public comment before the Berwick Select Board. I explained why residents were asking questions about the town’s decision to allow Police Chief Timothy Towne to pursue a seat in the Maine Legislature while remaining chief. I also described a public exchange with Representative Thomas Lavigne.

My point was that unanswered questions create a vacuum. People speculate. They argue. They become suspicious of one another. I asked the town to correct residents if we were wrong, confirm the facts if we were right, and explain if an answer could not legally be disclosed.

Five days later, Condon suspended me from the community group. His written feedback accused me of “slandering or smearing political candidates.” When I asked him which statement he meant, he did not identify one. He told me instead that I posted too many negative articles about law enforcement and candidates and seemed to post “only to cause disunity in the community.”

The irony is difficult to miss. I had warned that a lack of answers was fueling division. I had also asked the group’s administrators for help with an anonymous personal accusation. The answer I received from Condon was an accusation against my reporting, followed by no specific example when I asked him to explain it.

I had asked for an explanation before the suspension

On August 31, I noticed that posts of mine had been removed from the group without a reason I could see. I messaged Condon privately. I said I wanted to understand why so I could follow the rules and avoid creating extra work for the moderators. The messages I have retained show no answer to that request before my later follow-up.

(Messenger exchange with Aaron Condon showing my August 31 request for an explanation of removed posts and the beginning of my later follow-up about the suspension and anonymous accusation.)

Then came the anonymous post. It accused me of exploiting a “claimed disability” for “unearned benefits” and made allegations about child support and my children. It also displayed an excerpt of a private message in which I had explained why my existing disability status mattered to complaints and advocacy involving legal protections.

On September 17 at 8:42 a.m., I sent Chelsea a screenshot and asked whether she would tell me who was behind the post. I acknowledged that I was asking about someone who had posted anonymously and said I understood if she was uncomfortable disclosing the person’s identity. Chelsea replied that she did not have an issue with my request, but would have to check with Aaron. She said she would text him and expected to have an answer soon.

The messages I have do not show a later answer to that request.

(September 17 Messenger exchange showing my request to Chelsea, the anonymous post attached to it, and her reply that she would check with Aaron.)

What I said about Berwick’s unanswered questions

My September 17 post shared footage of my September 15 remarks to the Select Board. I described questions I had sent the board about Chief Towne’s potential dual role: what was approved, what changed between the board’s May 5 and May 19 discussions, how compensation and responsibilities would be handled, what legal guidance informed the decision, and where those decisions were documented.

I also described Representative Lavigne publicly telling me to “mind your business” after I questioned his response to another resident’s concerns. I referred to records I had previously reported concerning his communications with Select Board members.

I did not ask readers to take my word for what happened at the meeting. I shared the footage so they could watch it. And I asked officials to address the underlying questions. As I put it in the post: “But answer.”

The reporting I shared before the September 22 suspension

On September 22, I shared another article and video. This one compared my contemporaneous recording of an encounter at the Berwick Police Department with footage the Town later supplied in response to a public-records request.

My comparison identified an interval of roughly 14 seconds in my recording that is absent from the Town-provided video. I have asked the Town and Chief Towne to explain the difference. The comparison does not establish who removed that interval, when it was removed, or why.

Condon suspended me later that evening. His feedback referred broadly to “political posts” and “slandering or smearing political candidates,” without naming a statement or clearly identifying which post prompted the action. My September 17 Select Board post was part of my recent reporting, but so was the September 22 recording comparison. I cannot determine from his notice which statements he was judging.

The September 22 post was drawing substantial attention. Analytics I retained show 58,613 views from 36,932 viewers, along with 17,727 recorded engagements: 17,331 clicks, 74 comments and 39 shares.

There were 190 reactions: 124 likes, 51 wow reactions, 9 care reactions, 5 angry reactions and 1 love reaction. The display shows no laughing reactions. The numbers show that people were engaging with the material. A “wow” reaction does not tell us whether a person agreed, and the analytics do not tell us how many viewers came from this particular group.

(Analytics for the shared post showing 58,613 views, 36,932 viewers and a views-over-time curve above the account’s typical-content comparison.)

(Engagement analytics showing 17,727 engagements, including clicks, comments and shares, plus the breakdown of 190 reactions; no laughing reactions appear in the display.)

The group’s screenshot describes it as a public community with about 5,100 members. Suspending me and removing posts closed one route by which neighbors could encounter and discuss this reporting. I cannot calculate how many additional people would have seen it had the posts remained available there. What I can show is that people were interested in the material Condon chose to restrict from that community space.

The allegation Condon would not explain

Facebook’s moderation details show that Condon suspended me on September 22 at 8:47 p.m. until September 25 at 8:47 p.m. His feedback said:

“Trying to stir the pot with the political posts. Keep it relevant to the community without slandering or smearing political candidates.”

The notice listed the group rule “Be kind and courteous.”

(Facebook moderation details naming Aaron Condon as the administrator who suspended me on September 22, showing his “stir the pot” and “slandering or smearing political candidates” feedback and the group rule he cited.)

(Group page notice stating that my ability to post and comment in North Berwick • Berwick • Lebanon Community was suspended until September 25 at 8:47 p.m.)

On September 23, I asked Condon to identify what I had written that he believed was false or slanderous. I also returned to the anonymous accusation. By then, I was not asking him to reveal the poster’s identity to me. I asked whether the group would preserve identifying information available to its administrators and provide it directly to law enforcement if appropriately requested.

Condon responded:

“The page isn’t for eye witnesses news events. You have a tendency to post too many negative articles directed at our law enforcement and political candidates. You seem to post only to cause disunity in the community. This isn’t a page for your news.”

That described his view of my reporting. It did not identify a false statement.

I asked again for the specific basis of the “slandering or smearing” accusation and repeated my question about preserving information for police. Condon did not answer either question in the messages I have. He said the post had been removed and that he was done with the conversation because he did not want to invest more time in it.

I replied that I intended to report on the suspension, the removed posts and our exchange. I offered him an opportunity to provide additional context or answer the questions, including after publication. I told him I would not continue messaging him about it.

(Continuation of the Messenger exchange showing Condon’s explanation, my renewed request for a specific allegedly false statement, his decision to end the conversation, and my offer to include his perspective.)

After that exchange, I found that I could no longer access Condon’s personal Facebook page or the community group page from my account. I understand myself to have been blocked from both. A Facebook “content isn’t available right now” screen documents the access problem, although the screen alone does not identify who changed the settings or establish whether a block or another visibility restriction caused it.

(Facebook “This content isn’t available right now” screen encountered after the exchange; it shows a loss of access but does not specify the cause.)

A community group’s administrators can make moderation decisions. But Condon used the words “slandering or smearing political candidates” to justify restricting my participation. When I asked him to identify the statement behind that serious characterization, he spoke instead about the negative tone and frequency of my coverage. Those are different issues. Readers can evaluate a specific statement if he identifies one.

Why the anonymous post is part of this story

The anonymous September 17 post did more than disagree with my reporting. It made personal allegations about my disability, benefits, child support and relationship with my children. It used an excerpt of a private message I had written about why my disability status was relevant to advocacy and complaints I had filed.

(Anonymous September 17 post in the North Berwick • Berwick • Lebanon Community group making personal allegations above an excerpt of my private explanation of my disability status.)

The context of that excerpt matters. I wrote that I referenced my 100% disability “not for pity, but as a strategy.” I went on to explain that my disabilities are real and that an existing disability status has legal significance in complaints involving disability protections. I was describing why that status mattered to my advocacy. I was not saying I had sought disability benefits to manufacture a protected status.

I had seen the excerpt used in a similar way before. On January 14, Don Hall published a Facebook post in a Vassalboro group that included the excerpt and accused me of abusing veterans’ benefits. In August, Representative Lavigne supplied a screenshot of Hall’s post after saying a Facebook post was the “single reason” he had not responded to any of the hundreds of emails on which he said he had been copied. He initially characterized it as my Facebook post, although the allegations around the embedded excerpt were written by Hall. The Maine Mirror published the correspondence and the screenshot in its August report.

(thomas lavignes screenshot provided to ryan displaying thomas’ single reason he chose not to respond to ryans communications(2).webp: Screenshot Lavigne supplied showing Don Hall’s January 14 post, its allegations about me and the embedded excerpt of my private message.)

Now a similar allegation, using the same excerpt and interpretation, has appeared anonymously in a group where my reporting was later removed. I believe that recurrence deserves investigation. It does not establish that Hall or Lavigne wrote, prompted or knew about the anonymous post. Nor does it establish that either administrator knew who posted it. That is why I sought help identifying the source and later asked about preserving information for police.

The questions still open

I would welcome a clear answer from Condon:

• Which specific statement in my reporting did he consider false, slanderous or a smear?
• Which removed post or posts prompted the September 22 suspension?
• What happened after Chelsea said she would ask him about the anonymous post?
• Was that post approved by an administrator, and how was the group’s “Be kind and courteous” rule applied to it?
• Would the group preserve information associated with the post for an appropriate law enforcement request?
• Was my later loss of access to the group a separate moderation decision, or the result of another visibility setting?

I would also welcome an answer from Representative Lavigne to a question left open by my earlier reporting: Did he verify Hall’s allegations before treating that post as his reason not to respond to me?

My September 17 message warned that silence can leave neighbors arguing over facts their officials could help clarify. What happened afterward has made that concern personal. I asked for help with an anonymous accusation. I shared reporting about public decisions and a comparison of two recordings. I was suspended under an allegation Condon has not explained to me, and I can no longer access the group from my account.

People do not have to agree with my reporting. They should be able to examine it, challenge a specific fact, and hear an answer. If I got something wrong, identify it so I can address it. The same standard should apply when someone makes allegations about me. A community cannot resolve a dispute over evidence when the people making the accusations will not say what they mean.