Alajuela, Atenas, Atenas
SKYPEIN No.: 1-978-961-0079 (Newburyport, MA)
29 April 2012
Office of the Clerk
Re: Petition for Further Appellant Review Pursuant to an exception to
To the Honorable Justices:
Barbara C. Johnson [“Mother”] requests leave to obtain further appellate review because the issues presented will affect the public interest or the interest of justice if left unaddressed by the Court.
The interest of justice which will be affected is the right of all present and future parties to rely on the cornerstone right of fundamental fairness and their rights to due process and equal protection under both the State and Federal constitutions and stare decisis. This is a substantial reason bound to affect the public interest or the interests of justice.
Mother contends that many issues and facts were overlooked or misapprehended by a single justice of the Appeals Court. Mother recognizes that an appeal from a decision of a single justice appears to be an exception to Rule 27.1.
Unless an exception is made, there is no route to get to this High Court other than an appeal from the superior court case. But that is IMPOSSIBLE because the lower-court judge claimed in writing that there is no record of a hearing referred to in his decision granting summary judgment, which Mother wants to appeal. Without a record of one or both of the hearings of 12 August and 20 October 2011, the record canNOT be assembled completely and properly for the appeal for which Mother has filed notice.
In accordance with Mass. R.A.P. 27, my Petition for Rehearing states with particularity the points of law or fact which the court might have overlooked or misapprehended.Motion (P#157) No action is taken on the request inasmuch as the telephonic hearing was not recorded but only witnessed by Clerl's [sic] office staff - all parties participated in the same with the Court. 3/7/2012 (Robert A. Cornetta, Justice). Notices mailed 3/7/2012
Judge William Meade should have recused himself from the case on the grounds of conflict of interest, personal prejudice, and failure to follow G.L. c. 261, §27D, upon which he relied for closing the case, and (2) to vacate closure of case and restore to the open list.
As grounds, Mother states that when she practiced law in Massachusetts, William Meade was opposing counsel representing the Commonwealth on at least one case. Mother recalls extensive communication with “Bill Meade.”
Further, in 2002, Mother ran against Mitt Romney in the gubernatorial
race. In January of this year, Mother published a book entitled Why
I Didn’t Sleep with Mitt Romney & Other Tales. Meade’s connection
to Romney is undisputed and published on the Appeals Court website at http://www.mass.gov/courts/-
From 2003 to 2005 he served as Deputy Chief Legal Counsel to Governor Mitt Romney, and from 2005 to 2006 he served as Legal Counsel to the Commonwealth's eleven District Attorneys. . . . He was appointed by Governor Romney as an Associate Justice of the Appeals Court on December 22, 2006.Mother campaigned on a platform of court reform and the abolition of judicial immunity, inciting the ire of the judiciary. Two or three weeks following the election, Mother received a call from the Office of Bar Counsel informing Mother a petition for discipline against her would issue, and it did, ten days after New Years 2003. On 8 or 9 August 2006, Mother was disbarred after a sham trial at which there were no prosecution witnesses and from which all Mother’s trial witnesses were precluded by quashing her trial subpoenas. Meade was subsequently, within months, appointed to the Appeals Court.
Because this case arises out of political retaliation and discrimination, the appointment of Judge Meade who has always represented the Commonwealth demonstrates that his decision (1) is not fundamentally fair and (2) denies Mother of a neutral trier or fact and law.
On 19 April 2012, Meade wrote:
RE#1: Without deciding the question of the petitioner's indigency, after review, all relief requested is denied. To the extent petitioner seeks review of an order of the trial court denying her request for waiver of costs associated with the preparation of transcripts, she is directed to G. L. c. 261, s 27D. (Meade, J.) *Notice/Attest/CornettaGeneral Law c. 261, §27D, does not apply to this case for several reasons. Underlying each of the several reasons is the failure of both the superior court and the appeals court to apply the law as written. It is well-settled that every word in a statute has meaning. Neither court followed the law.
The relevant part of c. 261, §27D reads:
Section 27D. In any case where the court denies a request for waiver, substitution or payment by the commonwealth of fees and costs, pursuant to section twenty-seven C or any other provision of law, the applicant may take an appeal as hereafter provided. . . . Upon being notified of the denial the applicant shall also be advised of his right of appeal, and he shall have seven days thereafter to file a notice of appeal with the clerk or register.Section 27D explicitly states that it applies when “the court denies a request for waiver, substitution or payment by the commonwealth of fees and costs.” In this case, the court did not deny Mother’s request. Instead, Judge Cornetta wrote twice, on both 7 and 19 March 2012:
Motion (P#157) No action is taken on the request inasmuch as the telephonic hearing was not recorded but only witnessed by Clerl's [sic] office staff - all parties participated in the same with the Court. 3/7/2012 (Robert A. Cornetta, Justice). Notices mailed 3/7/2012Judge Cornetta, instead,
(1) took no action on the request andThose three actions prove that c. 261, §27D, absolutely does not apply.
Therefore Judge Meade, in his personal anxiousness and bias against Mother, in concert with the long-standing political discrimination and prejudice of the judiciary, made an impetuous decision to close unlawfully Mother’s legitimate and appropriate interlocutory appeal.
Years ago, Mother was warned about putting negative facts in a motion, because a judge would deny the motion so that it would not appear he or she was agreeing with all the facts in the motion. Mother is taking a risk in this pleading, for she has no choice. The decade-old judicial anger and Meade’s motivation are inextricably intertwined. As Judge McHugh would say, there is a “confluence of circumstances” that influenced Judge Meade to “play along to get along.”
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court vacate the judgment of Judge Robert Cornetta, appoint a competent, neutral judge, and restore her case to the Superior Court list for trial. If this court fail to take that action, then Mother’s interlocutory appeal in Appeals Court must be opened and restored to that list.
29 April 2012 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Barbara C. Johnson
I hereby certify that on 29 April 2012 I served by email a true and accurate copy of the above pleading on opposing counsel of record, Kenneth J. Rossetti, Esq., Barton & Rossetti, P.C. 2 Haven Street, Suite 204. Reading, MA 01867.
29 April 2012
/s/ Barbara C. Johnson