DRANO SERIES TABLE


DRANO SERIES TABLE
The documents shaded Green are the documents 
the Board of Bar Overseers wants to censor.
Drano Is Needed to Wipe Out Rampant Discrimination by the Judiciary
(1) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,(2) EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF CHILD,
(3) EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND FOR AN AWARD OF SANCTIONS,
(4) SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT, ASSORTED RELATED MOTIONS, & PROPOSED ORDER
Meuse
More Drano Is Needed to Wipe Out Rampant Discrimination by the Judiciary: Fathers' outreach attempt to other fathers is rejected by Chief Justice as being political. What then are the women's outreach efforts?
Meuse
Judge Manzi's Order Puts Infant in Harm's Way
Meuse
Petition for Interlocutory Relief, Supporting Memorandum of Law, and Motion for Stay of Order of Probate & Family Court Pending Appeal
Meuse
An Amended Complaint Based on the Deprivation of Parental Rights


Suit against doctor, court investigator, mental-health counselor, psychologist,  social worker, trial court and child protective service

Linnehan and Brown 
Mom's Ex Parte Motion to Continue and Judge Mary McCauley Manzi's Unlawful Decision and Appeals Court Judge George Jacobs' Denial of Relief 
Meuse
Plan for Recusing an Anti-Children Judge

Petition to Invoke the General Superintendence of the Court
Meuse
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss on Immunity Grounds
Linnehan and Brown
Notice of Appeal from the Denial of the G.L. c. 211 sec. 3: 
Petition to the Full Bench of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 
Meuse
Letter to Chief Justice Sean Dunphy for Judicial Assignment
Meuse
Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Grounds of Sovereign Immunity: A Creative Look at Its Unconstitutionality.  It Could Change the Way Massachusetts Treats Its Citizens
Linnehan and Brown
Why an interlocutory appeal is necessary!
Meuse
The Default of Eli Newberger of Children's Hospital
Linnehan and Brown
Motion to Strike Eli Newberger's Answer to Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss
Linnehan and Brown
Opposition to Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents and Sanctions
Meuse
Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Linnehan and Brown
Is there a G.A.L. in your life? A letter to a guardian ad litem, the president of the hospital, and the hospital's general counsel
Another active case
Opposition to Eli Newberger's Motion to Remove Entry of Default
Linnehan and Brown
Jim's Story: The Devastating Story People Have Been Waiting For
Linnehan and Brown
Opposition to Eileen Kern's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Linnehan and Brown
Amended Complaint
Linnehan v. Robyn Gerry Sylvia Paternity Case
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBYN GERRY-SYLVIA IN HER DIVORCE CASE 
Robyn Gerry-Sylvia v. Michael R. Sylvia Divorce Case
AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL R. SYLVIA IN HIS DIVORCE CASE
Robyn Gerry-Sylvia v. Michael R. Sylvia Divorce Case
Complaint
Robyn Gerry-Sylvia v. Michael R. Sylvia Divorce Case
Obituary of a Grandfather Who Longed to See His Grandson Before He Died . . . AND THE LETTER OF THE PSYCHOLOGIST WHO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF GRANDPARENTS' VISITATION
Linnehan Grandparents v. Robyn Gerry Sylvia
Mass. SJC Denies Relief
Meuse
28
Deleted. 
Deleted
Brown's Opposition and Memorandum in Support of Opposition to Eli Newberger's Motion to Dismiss
Linnehan and Brown
Meuse's SJC Rule 27 Petition for Rehearing
Meuse
Plaintiff James Linnehan's Opposition and Combined Memorandum in Support of His Opposition to Children's Hospital's and Eli Newberger's Motion to Dismiss
Linnehan and Brown
Linnehan's Opposition and Memorandum in Support of Opposition to Jack McCarthy's Motion to Dismiss
Linnehan and Brown
Judge Death Threat case: Commonwealth v. Trimboli Motion for Exculpatory Evidence Updated: Not Guilty
Trimboli
Renegade Juvenile Court Judge Orders Impoundment of Materials Being Sued on in Federal Court. The outrageous order is reminiscent of edicts issued by tyrants, autocrats, and sociopaths who have climbed to the pinnacle of power in countries other than OUR U.S. of A.
Linnehan related
Petition for Interlocutory Relief from Supervised Visitation (M.G.L. 231, sec. 118)
John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
(1)Decision by judge to CLOSE courtroom over Smith's objection.


(2)Petition for Interlocutory Relief from Closed Session in Family Court (M.G.L. 231, sec. 118)

John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Letter to Judge Mark E. Lawton about Order to Impound Reports of Social Workers, Psychologists, and Eli Newberger-Childrens Hospital and Certain Documents on This Website
Linnehan related
A real case with names changed for privacy reasons.Complaint Brought Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 for False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Conspiracy, and Malicious Prosecution and Other Claims. "John Smith" was holding a tape recorder with which he had been taping the conversation with his wife's step-brother when the police entered the scene. Fate would have it that it was even in his palm when the officer cuffed his wrists behind Smith's back. The officer didn't notice it until Smith was being booked at the station.
John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF ON (1) COURT'S AUTHORITY TO RETAIN JURISDICTION (this is about the domestic relations exception -- that is, about when the federal court will not take jurisdiction of cases arising out of domestic relations cases), (2) DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST ELI NEWBERGER, (3) LINNEHAN'S SURREPLY TO DEFENDANT McCARTHY'S REPLY TO LINNEHAN'S OPPOSITION TO HIS MOTION TO DISMISS
Linnehan and Brown
A Complaint for Rescission or Reformation of a Deed from JOHN SMITH's parents and John SMITH to JOHN SMITH and POCAHONTAS based on mistake, deceit, or fraud by not intending to keep solemn marital vows to stay married to JOHN until death do them part. This Complaint, whether successful or not, should warn all parents who convey real property to a child and his or her spouse to write IN THE DEED that in the event the parties divorce, the property will revert to the grantors (the parents) and shall not be property of the marital estate.
John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Judge Dreben's Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Closed Hearings in Probate & Family Court (Decision on Drano #35 and #36)
John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Letter to Chief Judge Martha P. Grace, Juvenile Court, and Chief Judge Sean M. Dunphy, Probate & Family Court
Linnehan related
Letter to Chief Justice Barbara A. Dortch-Okara, Trial Court, Chief Judge Martha P. Grace, Juvenile Court, and Chief Judge Sean M. Dunphy, Probate & Family Court.  Added the context in which all these letters were written.
Linnehan related
Child's Attorney Caught Lying to Chief Justices!! Provable by Documentary Evidence: Letter in Reply to Child's Attorney's Letters to Chief Justice Barbara A. Dortch-Okara, Trial Court, Chief Judge Martha P. Grace, Juvenile Court, and Chief Judge Sean M. Dunphy, Probate & Family Court Added the context in which all these letters were written.
Linnehan related
Memo #14 by Retired Justice John J. Irwin, Jr., regarding payment of Guardian ad Litem fees: ordering the family court judges to violate a statute. See section 4(a) of the memo. Do the Nuremberg principles apply here?
John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Judge Caught Lying in Decision!!! Provable by Documentary Evidence.  Judge's Order Denying Motion for Restitution of Guardian ad Litem's Fees
John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
JOHN SMITH's interlocutory appeal on the issue of paying fees for the alleged services of a guardian ad litem was filed on Wednesday, July 25th. The appeal was based on both a constitutional issue -- the separation of powers -- and an allegation of fraud upon the court.In the petition, sufficient facts were asserted for the court to find that Merrill committed a fraud upon the court.
John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Guardian ad litem fees being contested in the Appeals Court.  APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR INTERLOCUTORY RELIEF.  The Judge and the Wife's Lawyer Caught Lying!! Provable by Documentary Evidence
John Smith, Sr, John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Supplementary Brief for the Return of John Smith's Children. File includes a sample cover, the motion for leave (permission) to file the supplementary brief, the very brief brief itself, and some important attorney-client fee agreements and billing tips.
John Smith and Pocahontas
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Rescission Sought on Grounds of Not Honoring Solemn Marriage Vows
John Smith, Sr., John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Verified Complaint for Violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983, False Arrest and Imprisonment, Conspiracy (under §1983 and common law), Failure to Protect and Prevent (by inadequately training), Malicious Prosecution, Abuse of Process, Negligence, Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Drano Series #52, 53, 54, and 55: OppositionS to Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Violations of 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, False Arrest and Imprisonment, Conspiracy (under section 1983 and common law), Failure to Protect and Prevent (by inadequately training), Malicious Prosecution, Abuse of Process, Negligence, Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress


Oppositions to Police Commissioner Big Honcho's Motion (in his personal capacity) Court allowed the Commissioner's Motion to Dismss

John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Oppositions to City and Police Commissioner in His Official Capacity 


The court ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part the City's Motion to Dismiss.
Count 5 -- a section 1983 count -- against the City is still alive and well.

John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Oppositions to Officers Colorone and McBroghan's Motion to Dismiss


Smith won this round.  The court DENIED the police officers' Motion to Dismiss.
The case against the officers is alive and well.

John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Oppositions to Pocahontas Smith and Sean Plumber's Motion


Smith won this round.  The court DENIED Pocahontas and Plumber's Motion to Dismiss.  The case against the Pocahontas (Smith's wife) and her stepbrother is alive and well.

John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Complaint for Contempt Against Court and Its Judge . . . for disobeying an order of a single justice in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  See the Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss at Drano #71.
Judge's contempt case
Complaint Against the Judges,  the Family Court, the Trial Court,


and the Commonwealth (see Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at Drano #62)

John Smith, Jr., against  judges
Complaint in the Nature of a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 211, sec. 3 (about removal of children to another State)
John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Complaint in the Nature of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 211, sec. 3 (about closing hearings) and Decision on #58 and #59
John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Consolidated SJC Rule 2:21 Appeal of the Denials of Relief about the closed hearings and the removal of the children from one State to another
John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
The Decision on the Consolidated Appeals
John Smith, Jr., and Pocahontas
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint Against Judges, the Family Court, the Trial Court, and the Commonwealth (see Complaint at Drano #57)
John Smith, Jr., and People Who Wear Black Robes
The Marriage Vows Case:  Pointing out the errors in Pocahontas's Reply.


John Smith's Surreply to Pocahontas's Reply to his Opposition to her Motion to Dismiss

King Harry Smith, John Smith, and Pocahontas
More Technical Pleadings for the Marriage Vows Case:


Good if you want to learn how to argue the facts of your case using the LAW.
The pleading is a "Supplement" to a "Surreply." 

King Harry Smith, John Smith, and Pocahontas
Petition for Interlocutory  Relief from the Application of the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines Where the Father Has No Visitation


The legal ARGUMENT in this petition was written by the foremost NATIONAL EXPERT on Child Support Guidelines. (A link to her website and services is provided.) The petition does not address the constitutionality or the UNconstitutionality of the Massachusetts guidelines. That I will have to challenge in another way. DENIED on 12/27/01 without hearing.  See Drano #70.  Federal Complaint will be coming.

Linnehan domestic relations case
Petition for Interlocutory Relief for Temporary Child Custody


This petition is unlikely to be successful. The court will likely say that relief will be available after final judgment, but it WON'T BE. The child will be too old and will likely leave the home of the mother and go to points unknown. The father does not want to risk losing track of him. 

In either event, the petition shows the format -- at least in Massachusetts -- to be used for such an interlocutory appeal. It may also work in other States. The law, primarily from the United States Supreme Court, is good in all States.
DENIED on 12/27/01 without hearing or explanation. 

Linnehan domestic relations case
Complaint in the Nature of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and to Invoke the General Superintendence of the Court (pursuant to M.G.L. c. 211, sec. 3) to Reverse the Denial of Meuse's Motion to Dismiss the PARENTAL KIDNAPPINGCharge


Technical but necessary.  It's another way to get interlocutory relief, that is relief from the denial of a motion to dismiss before trial.  The law is, of course, primarily from Massachusetts, but there is also law from other States and from the United States Supreme Court, which is good in all States.

Brian Meuse Found NOT GUILTY of Parental Kidnapping

Brian Meuse's


parental kidnapping case

5/23/2002: Brian Meuse Found
NOT GUILTY of Parental Kidnapping

Motion for Restitution of Fees  Paid for Guardian ad Litem if  Your State Was Supposed to Pay  but You Were Ordered to Pay  Instead


The courts are trying to get around the statute by saying you consented by either stipulating or not objecting to their ordering you to pay the fees.  My contention is that that is not good enough:::  the statute orders the Commonwealth to pay, NOT you.  Any agreement into which you entered or any failure of you or your counsel to object does not cut it . . . it would have yielded a result opposite to the intention of the statute and thus would have been an unlawful agreement or result.

A sample for you to use with your own facts
First Round of an Appeal Fighting Immunity:


* Sovereign Immunity for the State
* Absolute, Quasijudicial Immunity for certain so-called mental-health workers 
* Qualified Immunity for public officials and certain private parties

Linnehan and Brown against doctor, court investigator, mental-health counselor, psychologist,  social worker, trial court and child protective service
Complaint in the Nature of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and to Invoke the General Superintendence of the Court


In Massachusetts, this is the only way to "appeal" a denial by a single justice in the Appeals Court to give relief from the application of the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines where a father has no visitation

Linnehan v. the mother of his child and the court
Attorney-General Thomas Reilly's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Contempt Against Judge. The SJC dismissed the Complaint immediately, without giving the plaintiff an opportuity to oppose the motion. See the Complaint at Drano #56.
Judge's Contempt Case
Reply of Brown and Linnehan to Defendants' Appellee Briefs


The Primary arguments are immunity and state action, i.e., whether the defendants were state actors. 

Linnehan & Brown against Evil Evaluator ELi Newberger et al


in the multibillion $,$$$,$$$,$$$ sex-abuse industry

Decision of Appeal Against Eli Newberger and Immunity:


* Sovereign Immunity for the State
* Absolute, Quasijudicial Immunity for certain so-called mental-health workers 
* Qualified Immunity for public officials and certain private parties
When I filed this appeal, I had absolutely no hope of winning it.  I hoped only that I would get one or two sentences which would crack open a wee bit the door locked tight by immunity.  I think I succeeded. See the decision: if judges are people, they are accountable -- according to Article V of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.  This one might be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on that question.  It might also be used for the appeal in my judge case.

Linnehan & Brown against Evil Evaluator ELi Newberger et al
Complaint under §1983 for Deprivation of Civil Rights, §1985(3) for Conspiracy, Common-Law Conspiracy and Emotional Distress.   Five attorneys -- one now a sitting judge and one prominent lawyer court-appointed as Discovery Master -- being accused of attempting to commit fraud upon the court Uploaded with pseudonyms!!
John Smith and Pocahontas and her counsel
Two more exhibits proving opposing counsel and the Discovery Master were committing fraud upon the court on Monday, June 3, 2002, in Suffok Probate & Family Court. 
John Smith and Pocahontas and her counsel
Opposition to a motion to dismiss by one of the attorneys sued for attempted fraud.   Uploaded with pseudonyms!! 
John Smith and Pocahontas and her counsel
Answer to a Complaint for Contempt for Nonpayment of Child Support When There Has Been No Custody or Visitation Uploaded without surnames!! 
Paul and Lynda
78
To come when I know it's safe!
John Smith and Pocahontas and her counsel and the Discovery Master
Opposition to a motion to dismiss by the second of five attorneys sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. section 1985(3) for conspiracy. 


At the top, I give instructions on how I tried to write a brief to overcome the hurdles of judicial and quasijudicial immunity.
Uploaded with pseudonyms!! 

John Smith and Pocahontas, her former counsel (now lsoa sitting judge), the Discovery Master, and a judge
The Bar War: Barb's First Response to the Complaint by Robyn (mother of Jim Linnehan's child) and the child's court-appointed attorney, Deborah D. Wolf to the Board of Bar Overseers Office of the Bar Counsel
Barb Fights for her First Amendment rights against secrecy by impoundment
The Bar War: Barb's Second Response to the Complaint by Robyn (mother of Jim Linnehan's child) to the Office of the Bar Counsel and/or Board of Bar Overseers 
Barb's fight for her First Amendment rights continues
The Bar War: Barb's Second Response to the Complaint by Deborah D. Wolf (the child's Juvenile-Court-appointed attorney) to the Office of the Bar Counsel and/or Board of Bar Overseers
Barb's fight for her First Amend- ment rights continues against the court-appointed attorney
The Bar War: Barb's Response to the Complaint by the Office of the Bar Counsel 
Barb's fight against Bar Counsel
The Bar War: The Sano Saga: a series of letters from me to the Assistant Bar Counsel in response to a Complaint filed by Deb Sano in 1999, three years ago.  It was a bill dispute.  Deb had given me a little more than $10,700.  Feeling sorry for her and her family I did not charge for many things I did -- discounted many charges -- and sent her back a little more than $3100.  She wanted more money back I asked what parts of the bill she disputed.   Instead of giving me what I thought was a reasonable response, she complained to the Bar.   The Bar counsel did find an arithmetic error of a little more than $300.  I sent Deb a check for the amount.  Read the details.
Barb's fight against Bar Counsel


and the Sanos

84a
The Bar War: To come. Banned in Boston by the Board of Bar Overseers, commandered by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Barb's fight against Bar Counsel


and the Sanos

85
The Bar War: To come. I must yet write this account.  It is about the events surrounding the 24 hours in 1998 I spent in jail because I said "No" to a judge who wanted to allow opposing counsel to see records of my own personal finances. . . . to determine whether my clients and/or I had the funds to fight the long, hard fight.
The judge had found me in contempt of a non-existent order to pay opposing counsel fees and to pay fines each day I did not pay.   I balked in paying them.  I was trying to see 26 boxes of documents . . . to get MORE (I already had some) . . . documentary proof of the fraud committed by a company against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  (TYCO -- yes, of scandal fame -- had bought the defending company and was in control of the boxes.)
Barb's fight against Bar Counsel
about a bogus charge of contempt
The Bar War: Sunday, 1/19/2003


My Proposed Findings of Fact, Memorandum of Law, and Proposed Rulings of Law after hearing on Bar Counselís motion for the release of impounded or segregated records. 

Where Did Justice Go? (Case #1)Three courts and the  Board of Bar  found NOTHING wrong with an attorney putting an attorney's lien for attorney's fees on the case of a senior citizen who did not even know him. Retaliation??


4/4/03 Update: The highest court in Massachusetts denied Senior Citizen Cholfin's application for further appellate review.  No reason given.  Just denied.   An abominable decision.

Retaliation because I'm fighting against JUDICIAL IMMUNITY????
Where Did Justice Go? (Case #2, An Estate Owed Elderly Caregiver Payment for Services )The decision in this old case is so badly reasoned that I cannot help think it was just an example of how far the court will go in Retaliation because I'm fighting against JUDICIAL IMMUNITY.
Retaliation because I'm fighting against JUDICIAL IMMUNITY????
Reserved.

The Bar War: Barb's Official Answer to the Petition for Discipline Against Barb


The Board of Bar Overseers is the adjudicatorial arm. General Counsel of the BBO reports to the Board.  The Office of Bar Counsel is the prosecutorial arm. Bar Counsel of the BBO reports to the SJC.  However, before a Petition for Discipline is sent out, the OBC needs the approval of the BBO.
This answer was the one produced by counsel, whom I soon fired and then submitted as my answer my original answer as shows in ##90A, 90B, and 90C..

Count Oneof Bar Counsel's Petition for Discipline of Barb and Her Side of the Story Interwoven in Blue

Count Twoof Bar Counsel's Petition for Discipline of Barb and Her Side of the Story Interwoven in Blue 

Count Three of Bar Counsel's Petition for Discipline of Barb and Her Side of the Story Interwoven in Blue 

The Bar War Barb's Motion for Award of $50,000 Fees by Mass. Supreme Judicial Court for Attorney to Defend Against Charges by Office of Bar Counsel in Petition for Discipline of Her. 
The Battle Between Barb and the Bar
The Elderly and the Struggle for Medicaid: An Elder Fights the Denial of Medicaid by Division of Medical Assistance and the Hearing Officer Needs the Immunity Defense Provided by the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act 


An elderly woman appealed the administrative decision by the Division of Medical Assistance of the Office of Health and Human Services to deny her MassHealth/Medicaid. She sued a few folks in their official and individual capacities. Those folks moved to dismiss the case against them as individuals ... because the Commonwealth does not indemnify them (pick up the tab for them) in their individual capacities, where their own bank accounts would be in jeopardy.

GiGi (Great-Grandma) fights the Division of Medical Assistance of the Office of Health and Human Services:  Issue 1: Immunity not applicable. 


Issue 2: Incompetence and bad faith erases any protection by immunity of the Mass. Tort Claims Act

The Bar War: Maggie Mulvihill, Columnist with the Boston Herald,Weighs in on Barb's Fight with the Bar Counsel: "Bar better be prepared for battle" (March 11, 2003)
Retaliation because I'm fighting against JUDICIAL IMMUNITY????
Has your spouse moved to another State and gotten a restraining order there against you? A Special Petition about a Restraining Order in Another State: 


When a Section of a Restraining Order Statute Has Not Been Interpreted by the High Court

A revengeful spouse?
Family Court Commits Crimes:  Destruction of Evidence and Obstruction of Justice Three sitting judges and two assistant registers are implicated in crimes, proving that Sean Dunphy is a failed administrator
Corruption of the Family Court
The Bar War:Judge Allen J. Jarasitis: Judas to Justice


A sitting justice is a traitor to justice in trying to help the Bar Counsel and his Assistant Bar Counsel get Johnson
May they hang on their own petard!  May the judge be impeached and the Bar Counsel, Daniel Crane, and his assistant, Susan Strauss Weisberg, be disbarred for unethical and perhaps criminal behavior. We do not need such despicable people in our judicial system.

Corruption of a judge and the Office of Bar Counsel
John Smith's Opposition to Discovery Master's Motion of 4 May 2003 (a) to Approve Expenditures from Escrow Accounts and (b) for Instructions on What to Do with the Remaining Funds Conversion? Larceny? Fraud? 


Two court-appointed escrow agents -- two lawyers -- were not to remove funds from a $43,000  escrow account without court  permission . . . but they did remove funds without that permission.  Now one is trying to get the judge to approve his conversion of the funds.


John Smith and Pocahontas.

Corruption of two lawyers -- now one a judge

Lawyers Weekly Hearsay Column, 6/23/2003:A HEARSE, OF COURSE
Calling attention to people's civil rights
John Smith's Opposition to His Wife's Attorney's Fees


Great for finding reasons upon reasons why you should NOT have to pay your spouse's attorney's fees

John Smith and Pocahontas
The Bar War: Johnson Seeks Reconsideration of Her Motion for a Jury Trial for the Board of Bar Disciplinary Hearing
The Battle Between Barb and the Bar Continues
Floyd and Barker: the Seminal Case from the Star Chamber out of which 


Judicial Immunity Arose in 1607

Judicial Immunity
The Bar War: Are Lawyers Entitled to the Full Sweep of Due Process Protections?
BBO and the Star Chamber
John Smith Appeals Dismissal on Eleventh Amendment and Judicial Immunity  Grounds of Case Against Judges -- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT (Memorandum and order included)
John Smith against the judges Eleventh Amendment and Judicial Immunity 
Panel to Set Standards on Judicial Accountability by David G. Sacks, first justice of the Hampden Probate & Family Court and chairman of the newly created  Steering Committee on Performance and Accountability. The article appeared in Lawyers Weekly, October 27, 2003 on page 11 [ 32 M.L.W. 443]
Dunphy gives us the status quo??
Barb's Letter Makes It into the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, November 3, 2003 She complains that the Board of Bar Overseers'  new accounting rule steamrolls over lawyers' rights.  Yep, we have them, too.  The point is that they steamroll EVERYONE's rights!
Barb warns against BBO's trap for the unwary: New Board Rule 1.15 unconstitutional
The Bar War:Some of the Motions Barb Filed at the BBO [Board of Bar Overseers] from the most recent to the oldest
To save yourself???
BARB GOES ON THE OFFENSIVE:The Bar War:State Complaint Against the Board of Bar Overseers, Chair Ellen Carpenter, Special Hearing Officer Herbert P. Phillips, the Office of Bar Counsel, and Bar Counsel Daniel Crane 
Barb sues the BBO
BARB GOES ON THE OFFENSIVE:The Bar War: Preliminary Injunction
The attempt failed
BARB GOES ON THE OFFENSIVE:The Bar War: Federal Complaint Against the Board of Bar Overseers, Chair Ellen Carpenter, Special Hearing Officer Herbert P. Phillips, the Office of Bar Counsel, and Bar Counsel Daniel Crane
Barb sues the BBO in federal court
John Smith's Reply to the A-G's Appellee Brief: What do you think?  Was the A-G stymied about how to justify judicial immunity? Is the Commonwealth a "person"? Can you sue your own State in Federal Court? Did you know there are two prongs to the Eleventh Amendment? One ratified. The other, 100 years younger and  judge-made. Can you overcome the Rooker-Feldman doctrine?
John Smith on Judicial Immunity, the Eleventh Amendment, Rooker-Feldman, and a taste of sovereign immunity
John Smith's Second Section 1983 and Malicious Prosecution Complaint against Pocahontas (the second time), the Detective with the Domestic Violence Unit, the City of Boston, and Pocahontas's attorney, who made the bogus 911 phonecall to the police
John Smith sues Pocahontas for malicious prosecution again, the police, and Pocahontas's attorney in federal court
John Smith's Opposition to DV Detective James's Motion to Dismiss
Second malicious prosecution action by Smith.
John Smith's Opposition to Boston's Motion to Dismiss.See also ##111, 112,139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 (all summary judgment pleadings),
Second malicious prosecution action by Smith. 
BARB GOES ON THE OFFENSIVEOpposition to the Motion to Dismiss by Board of Bar Overseers, the Board Chair Carpenter, Special Hearing Officer Herbert Phillips, Office of Bar Counsel, Bar Counsel Daniel Crane   All about the Younger Abstention Doctrine, which the courts use to dismiss your federal complaints
Barb Fights Back the BBO and the OBC AND the Younger Abstention Doctrine in federal court
Table of Contents to Proposed Findings of Fact
Actual Proposed Finding -- Half html'ing done.  Other half to do.
What you need to write after a divorce trial


Will show you what you can ask during your divorce trial

Brian Meuse's Federal Complaint for Violation of His Civil Rights, including Malicious Prosecution, False Arrest and Imprisonment, and Defamation: All Arising out of an Affidavitless Warrant and a Conspiracy, Uncaring Courts, and a Parental Kidnapping Charge Leading to a Verdict of Not Guilty
What you need to file after a verdict of Not Guilty
BARB GOES ON THE OFFENSIVEBarb's Brief Asserting That Neither Quasi-judicial Nor Quasi-prosecutorial Immunity Is Applicable AND


Barb's Opposition to Defendants' Further Motion to Dismiss AND 
Motion to Reconsider Dismissal of Counts 1-6, Which Seek Declaratory Judgments (Court has subject-matter jurisdiction.  Judge did not realize that!!!)

A few creative arguments on:


Quasi-judicial Immunity and Quasi-prosecutorial Immunity


NCMEC
Stults
Pane

Brian Meuse's Oppositions to Three Motions to Strike for Alleged Noncompliance with Rules 8(a) and 8(e)Opposition to National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC),  3/31/04


Opposition to Rosalyn Stults, Esq.,  3/13/04, 
Opposition to Susan Pane, 3/13/04 

Compares Rules 8(a) and 8(e) with 9(b) and the common law on pleading conspiracy.
The Bar War Continues: Barb's Proposed Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law in the Bar's Action Against Her
Barb Fights the BBO
John Smith's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to the United States Supreme Court


About "Good Behavior" and Judicial Immunity and the Eleventh Amendment
All three documents are here: the Petition, the Judgment from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and and the Memorandum and Order from the United States District Court at Boston  -- 
Related pleadings:
Drano #57, the Complaint
Drano #62, the Oposition to Motion to Dismiss, and
Drano #103, the appellate brief to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and
Drano #128

There is only ONE percent chance that this writ will be heard by the United States Supreme Court.  Keep your fingers crossed! I sued four judges in this case!
Brian Meuse's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by FOX Television Stations, Inc. Issues: Fair Report Privilege to Defame and Conspiracy
Meuse's Sec. 1983, false arrest, defamation, malicious prosecution, etc.
BARB GOES ON THE OFFENSIVECOMING: Motion to Reconsider Memorandum and Order of 5/26/04 and Vacate Dismissal of Counts 7-10.  This motion was denied.  Case on appeal.
Barb's federal case against the Board of Bar Overseers
Meuse's Opposition to STF Production's Motion to Dismiss. STF is more well known as America's Most Wanted, the TV show on FOX.
Brian Meuse
Meuse's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).Judge rules NCMEC immune to suit under federal law
NCMEC gets $10,000,000 a year from the federal government. BACKCHANNEL source says, No over $18,000,000 a year!
Fathers for Justice:Photos of London Fathers Day Protest March
Support F4J-UK !!!!!!
The Court's Decision & Meuse's Motion to Reconsider Sua Sponte Dismissal of Bivens Claims. Judge rules American's Most Wanted and FOX TV  immune to suit under federal law.


UPDATE: Judge Harrington refused to issue Rule 54(b) judgment, so First Circuit appeal of the dismissal of the claims against the corporations was not allowed to go forward. 

(1) Meuse will have to sue American's Most Wanted and FOX TV (Rupert Murdoch enterprises) and National Center of Missing and Exploited Children and Wal*Mart in State court or wait to appeal the dismissal os the corporations at the end of trial. 

(2) Meuse will have to sue the FBI separately for fraud.

A Surprise Dismissal of so-called Bivens claims
The Firestorm Caused by Meuse's Motion to Reconsider Sua Sponte Dismissal of Bivens Claims
Former Boston FBI Agents Caught LYING !!!  The same month now-imprisoned FBI John J. Connolly, Jr., indicted
Smith seeks a rehearing of his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  His nonconforming letter-petition has probably 1/2 of 1% of 1% chance of being granted -- but it was a chance to tell the Supreme Court what she thinks of the judicially-created doctrine of judicial immunity
Barb hoped her letter would reach the Supreme Court justices.  A few months later, Barb had heard nothing.  Into the Black Hole it went!
Letter to the Editors of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, published on 8/16/04. Barb includes here the original letter, too.  You can compare what got cut out before statewide publication.
Barb surprised that provocative letter about judges got published ... but judges' names got redacted
Opposition to Motion in Limine to Preclude Defense.Defendant is charged with criminal trespass.
Dottie LaFortune's home was foreclosed and a Writ of Possession issued. This 50-something former dance teacher was removed from her home by a SWAT team (law enforcement thought the Alabama Militia had come North to Maine to help her resist removal!).  They handcuffed her, searched her home, and charged her with Criminal Trespass. 

The DA, formerly the President of Maine's Senate, then brought a Motion in Limine on the grounds of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) to stop LaFortune from claiming the home from which she was removed was hers.

So LaFortune contacted Barb to oppose the motion. The opposition discusses collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) and void judgments.  In Barb's opinion, the bureaucrats of the City of Biddeford goofed, the DA's motion is frivolous, and LaFortune was not trespassing.

Judge Arthur Brennan forbid Dorothy from defending against a civil judgment she contends is invalid. In Barb's opinion, the judge is incorrect.  A civil judgment, based on a preponderance of the evidence, cannot support a judgment onreasonable doubt.

State of Maine v. Dorothy LaFortunefor criminally trespassing in her own home, from which she was removed by a SWAT team.
Appellate Issues: Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) and void judgment. 

The trial judge on the criminal case was also on the civil case.  He denied Dot's motion to recuse himself from the criminal case.

Trial on March 28th in Alfred, Maine, at York County Superior Court

Amended Motion to Dismiss State of Maine v. Dorothy LaFortune on Grounds of Where Judgment of Civil Court Was Void on Jurisdictional Grounds, Defendant Was Owner of Property and Could Not Trespass, Making Dismissal Mandatory by Operation of Law. In Barb's opinion, the bureaucrats of the City of Biddeford goofed and LaFortune was not trespassing. Where the foreclosure and writ were unlawful, the charge of criminal trespass must be dismissed.
Issue: Void judgment
State of Maine v. Dorothy LaFortuneTrial on March 28th in Alfred, Maine, at York County Superior Court
Updated Pretrial Conference Memorandum


Uncontested Facts, Contested Facts and Issues of Law, Lists of Witnesses and Documents, Updated Pretrial Conference Memorandum Contested Facts and Issues of Law

State of Maine v. Dorothy LaFortuneTrial on March 28th in Alfred, Maine, at York County Superior Court
BARB GOES ON THE OFFENSIVEAppellate Brief in Barb v. Board of Bar Overseers, the Board Chair Carpenter, Special Hearing Officer Herbert Phillips, Office of Bar Counsel, Bar Counsel Daniel Crane   All about the Younger Abstention Doctrine, Rooker-Feldman, and the Eleventh Amendment (the unconstitutional second prong), all of which the courts use to dismiss your federal complaints


PLUS:  The Massachusetts Bar Association announces Task Force to study and evaluate policy and procedures at the Board of Bar Overseers. Lawyers Weekly, Editorial, Oct. 18, 2004. 33 M.L.W.426

Barb versus the Board of Bar and others goes to the First Circuit Court of Appeals
In Memoria: Patrick "Butch" Bailey, on September 20, 2004, by Suicide brought on by Judge Herbert Gill, Chesterfield County, Virginia
Patrick "Butch" Bailey
Opposition to Defendant Attorney John DiPiano's Motion to Dismiss.


The ofollowing Drano pleadings are related to this opposition: ##136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, and 147 now in both .html and .pdf files . 

Facts for summary judgment broken into Disputed Material and Immaterial and Undisputed Material and Immaterial facts  Learn thow o argue the difference! The pleadings include legal arguments for:

  • tape-recording police officers at the scene (recorder on before officers arrive)
  • videocam-ing a wife and her divorce attorney
  • Domestic Violence Guidelines
  • municipal liability
  •  
  • custom and policy
  • deliberate indifference
  • single incidence or "obviousness"
  • arrest-preferred policy
  • full faith and credit for out-of-state restraining order
  • federal bonus incentives for complying with Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Programs   (by DoJ Office of Justice Programs and Office of Violence Against Women, OVW/VAWA) 
  • garden-variety malicious prosecution and section 1983 malicious prosecution
  • a constitutional argument allowing a conspiracy claim  under the second clause of § 1985(3)(c) without having to prove invidious gender discrimination Drano Series #141
  • Second malicious prosecution action by Smith.


    In .htmland Adobe pdf files

    Opposition for Reconsideration of Judge Mark Wolf's Denial of Detective Suzanne/Susan James's Motion to Dismiss


    This pleading goes deeply into the issue of RESTRAINING ORDERS and the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GUIDELINES, particularly the arrest-preferred policy.

    Second malicious prosecution action. Smith won!
    In .htmland Adobe pdf files
    Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Mark Wolf's Denial of John DiPiano's Motion to Dismiss


    This pleading goes deeply into the issue of RESTRAINING ORDERS and CIVILand CRIMINALCONSPIRACIES.

    Second malicious prosecution action. Smith won!
    In .htmland Adobe pdf files
    Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Mark Wolf's Denial of City of Boston's Motion to Dismiss. 


    The opposition is exciting because it goe deeply into the issue of RESTRAINING ORDERS and the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GUIDELINES particularly the arrest-preferred policy, custom and policy of municipality.

    Judge Wolf denied the defendants' motions for reconsideration of the denial of the defendants' motions to dismiss.


    In .html and Adobe pdf files

    Is your claim a "garden-variety" malicious prosecution claim or a malicious prosecution claim amenable to Section 1983? Very important issue!


    If you have a garden-variety malicious prosecution claim, it might be dismissed.

    For any malicious prosecution case by John Smith. Judge Wolf ruled the malicious prosecution claim was NOT"garden-variety" malicious prosecution claim.


    In .html and Adobe pdf files

    Smith's Opposition to Police Officers' Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment 
    First malicious prosecutioncase by John Smith
    In .html and Adobe pdf files
    Smith's Memorandum in Support of His Opposition to Police Officers' Memorandum s in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment 


    Important brief about conspiracy under section 1985(3)(c),comparing conspiracy under first and second clauses.  The first needing invidious discrimination.  The second, not.

    First malicious prosecution case by John Smith


    In .html and Adobe pdf files

    Smith's Surreply to Police Officers' Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment [
    First malicious prosecution case by John Smith


    In .html and Adobe pdf files

    DECIDED: POLICE OFFICERS ARE NOTENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: 


    Smith's Opposition to Police Officers' Motion for Reconsideration (by Chief Magistrate-Judge Robert B. Collings) of the Denial of the Officers' Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity 

    First malicious prosecution case by John Smith 
    In .html and Adobe pdf files
    DECIDED: POLICE OFFICERS ARE NOTENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: 


    Smith's Surreply in Opposition to Police Officers' Motion for Reconsideration (by Chief Magistrate-Judge Robert B. Collings) of the Denial of the Officers' Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity 

    First malicious prosecution case by John Smith 
    In .html and Adobe pdf files
    DECIDED: POLICE OFFICERS ARE ENTITLED TO PROTECTION UNDER WIRETAP STATUTE (Tape recording in progress when  police came.  Statute treated as mandatory statute.  Barb still disagrees): 


    Smith's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (by Chief Magistrate-Judge Robert B. Collings) of the Officers' Motion for Summary Judgment on Their Counterclaim for Violation of the c. 272, sec. 99(Q) (the wiretap statute) by tape-recording

    First malicious prosecution case by John Smith 
    In .html and Adobe pdf files


    New 7/7/05

    DECIDED: POLICE OFFICERS ARE ENTITLED TO PROTECTION UNDER WIRETAP STATUTE (Tape recording in progress when  police came.  Statute treated as mandatory statute.  Barb still disagrees): Smith's Supplemental Motion for Partial Reconsideration (by Chief Magistrate-Judge Robert B. Collings) of the Officers' Motion for Summary Judgment on Their Counterclaim for Violation of the c. 272, sec. 99(Q) (the wiretap statute) by tape-recording
    First malicious prosecution case by John Smith 
    In .html and Adobe pdf files
    DECIDED: POLICE OFFICERS ARE ENTITLED TO PROTECTION UNDER WIRETAP STATUTE (Tape recording in progress  when  police came.  Statute treated as mandatory statute.  Barb still disagrees): 


    Smith's Reply to Officers' Opposition to Motion for Partial Reconsideration (by Chief Magistrate-Judge Robert B. Collings) of the Officers' Motion for Summary Judgment on Their Counterclaim for Violation of the c. 272, sec. 99(Q) (the wiretap statute)

    First malicious prosecution case by John Smith 
    In .html and Adobe pdf files
    Smith's Motion to Dismiss John DiPiano's three counterclaims: (1) Tortious Interference with Advantageous Business Relationship, (2) frivolous suit, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, §6F, and (3) alleged violation of the wiretap statute, M.G.L. c. 272, §99(Q) by videocam-ing In an Adobe,pdf file
    Second malicious prosecution case by John Smith 


    In an Adobe pdf file

    Smith's Reply to John DiPiano's Opposition to Smith's Motion to Dismiss DiPiano's three counterclaims: (1) Tortious Interference with Advantageous Business Relationship, (2) frivolous suit, M.G.L. c. 231, §6F, and (3) alleged violation of the wiretap statute, M.G.L. c. 272, §99(Q) by videocam-ing In an Adobe pdf file
    Second malicious prosecution case by John Smith


    In an Adobe pdf file

    The Bar War Continues: As Barb anticipated, "they" want Barb's law license.   So here is her appeal to the Board.  "They" might give the appeal to a few members of the Board or the whole Board.  It's a roll of the dice.
    The BBO v. Barb 
    Barb v. The Bar et al: Barb sent her Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court The issues are quasi-judicial immunity and quasi-prosecutorial immunity. It's another roll of the dice.
    Barb v. The BBO at SCOTUS
    Complaints for Contempt by Pocahontas Against Smith and Smith Against Pocahontas, Two Orders by Judge Smoot, and 9 Motions by Smith: (1) Motion to Reconsider Order in ¶1 of August 12th Order re Appointment of Special Master, (2) Motion to Amend Order in ¶2 of August 12th Order re Child Support, (3) Motion to Amend Order in ¶3 of August 12th re Uninsured or Unreimbursed Medical Expenses, (4) Motion to Amend Order in ¶4 of August 12th Order in Pocahontas Smith v. John Smith and Order in ¶3 of August 12th Order in John Smith v. Pocahontas Smith, both re Life Insurance, (5) Motion to Stay Order in ¶5 of August 12th Order re Financial Statement,(6) Motion to Amend Order in ¶6 of August 12th Order re Delivery of Children to Pocahontasís Father, (7) Motion to Vacate Order in ¶7 of August 12th Order re Signing up for DOR/CSE Services, (8) Motion to Amend Order of August 12th to Include Order re Health Care Providers, (9) Motion to Adjudge Pocahontas Smith in Contempt of ¶¶4, 14, 23 of the Amended Judgment of Divorce of 22 April 2004 and to Sanction Her for Falsely Alleging that a Child Was Injured in Smithís Care and Then Accusing Him of Not Reporting the False Injury to Her 
    All were denied and will be appealed. The ones in reddemonstrate very clearly the invidious gender discrimination in family court against men.  These will be helpful to get to the U.S. Supreme Court  -- if Barb can overcome obstacles like the 11th Amendment and Rooker-Feldman, etc.
    John Smith and Pocahontas are back at it in family court for post-divorce matters.
    Pocahontas jumped the gun: she had a baby sired by a man other than her husband, married him, bought a new home, AND THEN THE DIVORCE BECAME FINAL.

    So she ended up not only an adultress but also a bigamist.  The Massachusetts family court in Boston did not care.

    Barb's Other Case Against the Bar and Bar Counsel Daniel Crane and his Assistant Prosecutor.Complaint against for Defamation and Interference with Prospective  Advantgeous Business Relationship
    Barb against the Bar, Crane and Strauss Weisberg


    See also Drano #156, #157,  #158, 172, 176, 180, 182, all dealing with this action.

    Barb's Opposition to the Recommendation of the  Board of Bar Overseers ["BBO"]for Disbarment
    This document was filed on Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, in the Single-Justice Session of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.   A hearing that day was held before Justice Spina.
    On August 9, 2006, Justice Spina ordered my disbarment,  I am to stop practicing in Massachusetts by September 8, 2006.  I received notice of it on Friday, August 11, 2006. 
    Home Page Announcement from 8/13/06 to xx/yy/07 for Barb's Opposition to the Recommendation of the Board of Bar Overseers for Disbarment
    Barb fights back in her words:

    The Bar against Barb
    Barb's Petition for Rehearing Pursuant to Mass. R.A.P. 27, after Judge Francis X. Spina, sitting as a single justice at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rubber-stamped the Recommendation of the  Board of Bar Overseers ["BBO"]for Disbarment
    The Bar against Barb


    (1) Motion to Strike Appearance of the Attorney General for the Board of Bar Overseers and the Office of Bar Counsel, (2) Opposition of A-G, and (3) Barb's Reply to A-G's Opposition 
    Barb against the Bar and Bar Counsel Crane and Asst. Bar Counsel Weisberg
    (1) Barb's Motion to Strike Appearance of the Attorney General for Bar Counsel Daniel Crane and Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss-Weisberg

    (2) the A-G's Opposition (when it is scanned in) 
    (3) ule 9A Notice of Filing 
    (4) Barb's Motion for Leave to File Reply to A-G's Opposition (included here only for use as boilerplate) and 
    (5) Barb's Reply to A-G's Opposition

    Barb against the Bar and Bar Counsel  Crane and Asst. Bar Counsel Weisberg

    (1)the Motion to Dismiss by Board of Bar Overseers, Office of Bar Counsel, Bar Counsel Daniel Crane, and Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss-Weisberg,(2) Table of Contents (Including List of Exhibits)of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Board of Bar Overseers, Office of Bar Counsel, Daniel Crane, Susan Strauss-Weisberg, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Their Request to Dispense with Hearing, Barb's Opposition to Motion to Dismissby Board of Bar Overseers, Office of Bar Counsel, Daniel Crane, Susan Strauss-Weisberg, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (4) Motion for Leave to File Surreply to A-G's Reply to Barb's  Opposition (included here only for use as boilerplate) and (5) Barb's Surreply to A-G's Reply to Barb's  Opposition (including some interesting exhibits: (B) Chief Judge YoungíOrder of February 25, 2004, (C) Issue 3, excerpted from Johnsonís Appellate Brief, filed in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, (D1) Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Federal Complaint, (D2) Supplemental Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Federal Complaint, (D3) Opposition to Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss Federal Complaint, amd (E)  History of Absolute Immunity 

    Barb v. the BBO, OBC, Danny Crane & Susan Strauss-Weisberg

    The Bar War Continues -- THE  9TH ROUND: Barb's Appeal of Justice Spina's Judgment of Disbarment to the Full Panel of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
    The BBO v. Barb
    The Bar War Continues -- EVIDENCE OF IMPROPRIETY AND CONFLICT -- Some Surprises on the Docket Sheet of Barb's Appeal of Justice Spina's to the  Full Panel of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial  Court Judgment of Disbarment
    The BBO v. Barb
    The Bar War Continues -- THE  9TH ROUND : Barb's Motion for Leave to File Brief in Excess of 50 Pages (filed in the Clerk's Office for the Full Panel of theMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court)
    The BBO v. Barb
    The Bar War Continues -- THE  9TH ROUND : Barb's Combined Motions: (1) Motion to proceed only on those parts of the original record before the single justice which are Johnsonís pleadings and (2) motion to strike the documents which Johnson has not seen or of which Johnson has not been given copies or which have not been properly authenticated (filed in the Clerk's Office for the Full Panel of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) 
    The BBO v. Barb
    The Bar War Continues -- A DETOUR :Barb's Motion to Recuse Justice Francis X. Spina from this Board Disciplinary Action (filed in the Clerk's Office for Suffolk County for the single-justice session of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court)
    The BBO v. Barb
    The Bar War Continues -- A DETOUR : Barbís Motion for Jury Trial on Petition for Contempt and a Declaration of Whether a Finding of Civil or Criminal Contempt Is Actually Being Sought by Bar Counsel (filed in the Clerk's Office for Suffolk County for the single-justice session of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) 
    The BBO v. Barb
    The Bar War Continues -- A DETOUR : Barbís Combined Opposition and Answer to Show Cause Why Contempt Should Not Issue (filed in the Clerk's Office for Suffolk County for the single-justice session of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) 
    The BBO v. Barb
    Barbís  Motion for Declaration as to What Constitutes the Unauthorized Practice of Law (to be filed in the Clerk's Office for Suffolk County for the single-justice session of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) ANDJudge Spina's Order
    The BBO v. Barb
    Johnson's Claims Predicated upon the Grounds Set Forth in Subsection (2)(D) of Local Rule 83.6 AND Request for Show Cause Hearing before Judge M. Wolf or a Panel of Three Persons [uploaded 11/3/2006]
    The BBO v. Barb
    Motion for Order Commanding the Board of Bar Overseers (1) to Correct Docket Sheets for BBO Board Discipline Case Against Barbara C. Johnson, (2) to Provide a Table of Contents Which Identifies Each and Every Document Included in the 12-Volume Set of the Appendix, (3) to Provide a Copy of the 12-Volume Set of the Appendix to Johnson

    IF ANY LAWYER HAD TRIED TO FILE AN APPEAL AND AN APPENDIX WITHOUT A TABLE OF CONTENTS,WITHOUT SUPPLYING COPIES TO THE OPPOSING PARTY, AND WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, THE CLERK WOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED IT FOR FILING
    Barb's Reply to Weisberg's Opposition to the Motion for Order Commanding the BBO to produce 
    The BBO v. Barb  -


    Egregious discrimination -- in this case a class-of-one theory 

    ~~~~~~~~

    BUTBELIEVE IT OR NOTBBO/OBC Susan Strauss- Weisberg opposed having to supply a Table of Contents for the 12-volume set, etc.

    Barb's Motion to Vacate Order Allowing Bar Counsel's Motion to Stay and Consolidate and to File Consolidated Brief on Appeal 
    The BBO v. Barb


    No due process,  no equal protection,  and egregious unlawful discrimination again on a class-of-one theory)

    Johnsonís Opposition to Bar Counselís Motion to Impound and Disregard Portions of Johnsonís Appendix, to File a Limited Supplemental Appendix, and to Proceed on and Refer to the Original Record. If Bar Counselís Motion Impound Has Been Allowed, Then Johnsonís Motion Is One to Vacate the Impoundment.
    The BBO v. Barb

    The BBO and OBC want everything impounded. 
    Impoundment equals secrecy!   Barb does not like secrecy! 
    The OBC motion was allowed without giving Barb a chance to oppose
    Barb's Motion for Declaration As to What Constitutes the Unauthorized Practice of Law ["UPL"] under G.L. c. 221, §41 and As to Other Related Matters. 


    Barb challenges the constitutionality of the UPL statutes, c. 221, §§41, 46, 46A, and 46B.  She also wants to get it in writing what she is permitted to do and not permitted to do!

    The BBO v. Barb
    Barb's Brief appealing the Judgment of Contempt by Judge Francis X. Spina.

    Spina lacked jurisdiction to hear Bar Counsel's contempt petition.
    The BBO v. Barb
    Barb's Brief appealing the Judgment of Dismissal by Judge Thomas Billings.  Billings wrote an interesting decision (included here, too).  Helpful to a great extent.  Clearly he knew he had to follow the party line and  make a political decision, which meant dismissal.  Barb thinks his heart was not in it. 
    The appeal is solely on IMMUNITY IMMUNITY IMMUNITY: How the Mass. Tort Claims Act is unconstitutional because there is no sovereign immunity in the Commonwealth, judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunuty under the common law, and unconstitutional immunity under the Board of Bar Rule 9(3),
    and even  a summary of everything you wanted to know about the Eleventh Amendment, which should not have any effect in a State court.

    Barb's case had four counts of defamation and one count of intentionalinterference with prospective advantageous business relationships.
    Barb v. the BBO, OBC, Bar Counsel Danny Crane, and Asst. Bar Counsel Susan Strauss Weisberg, and the Commonwealth
    Brief to show cause why no disbarment in First Circuit.  Then the First Circuit on December 5th entered an order of stay until Barb's appeal at the Mass. SJC is resolved. 
    The BBO v. Barb
    Reply to Bar Counsel's Opposition to Barb's Motion for Declaration as to What Constitutes the Unauthorized Practice of Law [see Drano #170].   Weisberg said Barb should have filed a Complaint for a declaratoty judgment.  Barb, no, that was not necessary, but if the court deems it was, just treat the motion as a complaint.  She had a cite right on point!
    The BBO v. Barb
    When Nonlawyers Are Permitted to Represent Parties in Legal Cases and the Representation Does Not Constitute the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
    For folks who cannot afford or who do not want a lawyer to represent them
    Barb's Amended Motion, Pursuant to M.G.L. C. 231, §59F, for Acceleration of Filing, Proceeding, Hearing, and Decision, with affidavit
    Barb v.  Bar Counsel Danny Crane,  Asst. Bar Counsel Susan Strauss Weisberg, the BBO, the OBC,  and the Comm. of Massachusetts
    A Multi-faceted Motion:Motion(1)to Vacate Order Allowing Appellee a Third Extension to over Four Months to File Brief,(2)to Reverse Forthwith the Denial of Johnsonís Motion for a Stay of Disbarment, (3) to Hold OBC and BBO in Default, (4)to Dismiss the Petition for Discipline Against Johnson, and (5)to Vacate Judgments of Disbarment and Contempt on Grounds of Being Both Devoid of Evidence and Replete with Egregious Irregularities in Process.
    The Bar War
    Motion to Dismiss the Disbarment on Grounds of Violation of  M.G.L. C. 231,§59F,and for Acceleration of Filing, Proceeding,Hearing, and Decision, with affidavit
    The Bar War
    Reply Brief -- Combined --to the Appellees' combined brief against Barb's Appeal of the Judgment of Disbarment and the Appeal of the Judgment of Contempt
  • BBO and Bar Counsel's misrepresentations, omissions, and errors of fact and law 
  • structural bias and absence of due process and equal protection
  • violation of equal protection on a class-of-one theory
  • BBO quashed her trial witness subpoenas duces tecum
  • distinction between exclusive and non-exclusive (illustrative) lists is deceptive: re M.G.L. c. 233, §8
  • judge issues order without either personal jurisdiction or subject-matter jurisdiction
  • improper use of issue preclusion or offensive collateral estoppel
  • clear error of law committed in disbarring and adjudicating Johnson in contempt 
  • The Bar War
    Barb v. The Bar et al:Reply Brief to the BBO, OBC, Crane, and Weisberg's Appellee Brief Against Barb's Appeal of the Judgment of Dismissal in Superior Court . The issues of interest are: 
  • To what extent are the Siamese twins politically dependent or independent? 
  • It is undisputed and admitted by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court  that it controls and supervises the BBO and OBC, but how pervasive is that control and supervision?
  • How much further than making political appointments to the BBO and OBC does the control and supervision go?  
  • Does the Mass. SJC dictate which cases are investigated and which are prosecuted? 
  • Does the Mass. SJC dictate what sanctions should be applied in certain or all the cases?
  • Does the Mass. SJC dictate in which cases an informationshould be filed at the single-justice session of the SJC?
  • Barb v.  Bar Counsel Danny Crane,  Asst. Bar Counsel Susan Strauss Weisberg, the BBO, the OBC,  and the Comm. of Massachusetts
    The Bar War:5 Motions and Oppositions in Barb's Two Appellate Cases:  One, the Appeal of the Judgment of Disbarment and the Other, the Appeal of the Judgment of Contempt  The SJC never decided these motions.  Guess you can conclude they were thus denied.
    The Bar War
    Barb v. The Bar et al:Barb's Rule 27.1 Application for Further Appellate Review by the Mass. SJC and the Appeals Court order causing Barb to seek further appellate review .   The issues -- abridged below -- are: 
    (1)Assuming arguendo that the Bar Counsel and the Assistant Bar Counsel are public employees, Article V of the Declaration of Rights, the Constitution of Massachusetts, commands that they be accountable at all times to all of the people, of which Johnson is one.
    (2) The Mass. Tort Claims Act ["(MTCA"] is unconstitutional.There was no rational bases for the Legislature to adopt the judicially created doctrine of sovereign immunity.  The people have a right to sue, given by Articles XI and XV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Right, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United State Constitution. Therefore, the dismissal of Johnsonís claims against the BBO, the OBC, and the Commonwealth on grounds of sovereign immunity was error.

    (3) Where there is no enabling statute for the BBO and OBC, their employees are not immunized by the MTCA for intentional torts. 

    (4)The very existence of § 9(3) circumstantially sufficiently demonstrates that the Bar Counsel and the Assistant Bar Counsel are private employees and are vulnerable to suit by the people, of which Johnson is one. 

    (5) Where sec. 1 of the MTCA does not include the BBO and the OBC or Bar Counsel or Assistant Bar Counsel,the dismissal of Johnsonís claims against the defendants on grounds of sovereign immunity was error.

    Barb v.  Bar Counsel  Crane,  Asst. Bar Counsel  Weisberg, the BBO,  the OBC,  and the Comm. of Massachusetts
    The Bar War:Barb's Petition for Writ ofCertiorarifiled in the United States Supreme Court. Issues are unique and are of national importance.  A must read for every lawyer.  Caption: In the Matter of Disbarment of Barbara C. JohnsonNo. 07-9625, docketed: March 3, 2008.  The Court gave it a different title: Barbara C. Johnson, Petitioner v. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. SCOTUS grants cert to only 1 percent of the cert petitions filed.  Keep expectations low.  If cert is granted, the legal business will change for both lawyers and the public who truly needs them.  It will wipe away the fear that keeps lawyers from zealously representing you!

    The original file of that which appears in Drano Series #183 may now be seen in .PDF at JD Supra: JD Supra: Legal Documents - Petition for Writ of Certiorari ....
    The Bar War
    The Bar War:Appendices A through G to Barb's Petition for Writ of Certiorari.Read the Massachusetts High Court's opinion and the Single Justice's Judgments of Disbarment and of Contempt.  AND THEN see Barb's comments INTERLEAVED into the High Court opinion.   Her comments call attention to how the Massachusetts High Court distorts the facts and invents others. The original file of that which appears in Drano Series #184 may now be seen in .PDF at JD Supra: 
    The Bar War
    Credit Card Case: A Few Sample Documents: Motion to Dismiss, Answers to Interrogatories, Answers to Requests for Production of Documents, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 
    Credit Card Collection
    Barb v. The Bar et al:Barb's Petition for Writ of Certiorarifor Review of Dismissal on Immunity Grounds .On Saturday, 24 May 2008, Barb mailed this petition to the United States Supreme Court. She has not had time to html the file, so here it is in pdf.  Just  click on the links  and see the original.
    Barb v.  Bar Counsel Danny Crane,  Asst. Bar Counsel Susan Strauss Weisberg, the BBO, the OBC,  and the Comm. of Massachusetts
    Federal Court: Johnson's Objections to the Imposition of Discipline Identical to That Imposed by Massachusetts< style="font-family: arial;">(with list of attachments).  Massachusetts wants the feds to impose the same discipline.  This is Johnson's response.  Interesting.


    AND
    The Bar Counsel's response to Barb's Objections

    The BBO v. Barb
    Barb's Opposition to Bar Counselís Motion to Impound and Strike or Disregard Respondentís Filings (accompanied by supporting affidavitGreat new arguments for deception, trickery, secrecy.  This is the discipline case, but cases and theory good for use in any court. Amercement the all-purpose royal penalty.   Analogize to your cases.  The BBO's brief is due Aug./ 15th. There will be a hearing on Sept. 22d in Courtroom 22 in U.S. District Court in Boston.  Judge Tauro will preside.
    The MASS. SJC seeks identical discipline in federal court.
    Declaration of VAWA Reform Coalition
    VAWA Reform Coalition
    Judge Tauro's Order and Barb's Preliminary Documents (1) Notice of Appeal of the Imposition of Discipline Identical to that Imposed by Massachusetts.  (2) Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis,(3) Affidavit to Accompany Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (4) Motion for Court to Amend and Revise Its Order of 29 September 2008. On Monday, 6 October 2008, Barb electronically filed this pleading in the United States District Court in Boston
    191  Appellate brief by Barbara C. Johnson on eviction  Barbara C. Johnson v. Marc I. Johnson and H. Yvonne Van Bodengraven
    192 PETITION FOR CERTIORARI PURSUANT TO M.G.L. c. 249, § 4 JURY DEMAND ON ALL COUNTS  Barbara C. Johnson 
    v. 
    Robert A. Cornetta, in his individual and 
     official capacities, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    193 Interlocutory Appeal to vacate judgment on grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction because the court is a "court NOT of record," making the judgment void ab initio.   (Mass.G.L. c. 231, §118, first paragraph) Barbara C. Johnson v. Marc I. Johnson and H. Yvonne Van Bodengraven
    194 Motion to Recuse Judge Wm. Meade and Vacate Closure of Cased (Failure to apply proper facts to interpret G.L. c. 261, §27D) Barbara C. Johnson v. Marc I. Johnson and H. Yvonne Van Bodengraven
    195 Petition For Rehearing,  Rule 27, A.C. No. 2012-J-0150 Barbara C. Johnson v. Marc I. Johnson and H. Yvonne Van Bodengraven
    196 Petition for Further Appellant Review Pursuant to an exception to Mass.R.A.P. Rule 27.1 or Petition to Invoke the Superintendency Powers of the Full Panel of the Supreme Judicial Court  Barbara C. Johnson v. Marc I. Johnson and H. Yvonne Van Bodengraven
    197 EMERGENCY, EXPEDITED PETITION FOR LEGAL OPINIONS ON GUIDELINES FOR JUDICIAL PRACTICE: ABUSE PREVENTION PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO M.G.L. c. 211, § 3 (accompanied by Affidavit of Barbara C. Johnson 

     
    DRANO SERIES TABLE
    *To get a Drano file, click on the number at the left. 
    For those with 640-pixel monitors, go to the end of the list below and click on the number there.

    Click away for Drano Series for 640-pixel monitors 

    #7 (640-pixel monitor)
    #9 (640-pixel monitor)
    #11 (640-pixel monitor)
    #13 (640-pixel monitor)
    #15 (640-pixel monitor)
    #17 (640-pixel monitor)
    #8 (640-pixel monitor)
    #10 (640-pixel monitor)
    #12 (640-pixel monitor)
    #14 (640-pixel monitor)
    #16 (640-pixel monitor)
    #18 (640-pixel monitor)
    #28 (640-pixel monitor)
    #30 (640-pixel monitor)
    #32 (640-pixel monitor)
    #34 (640-pixel monitor)