Barb's Complaint for Defamation Against Board of Bar Overseers, Office of Bar Counsel, Daniel Crane, Susan Strauss-Weisberg, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

 

NEWS FLASH Prosecutor for Board of Bar Overseers to step down May 23, 2006, Boston Globe Daniel C. Crane , bar counsel of the state Board of Bar Overseers, will step down June 30 after nearly seven years as the top prosecutor for the state's bar discipline program. ``I just decided it was time for me to move on, and it was a good time for the organization to move on," said Crane, 55. Crane's successor at the Office of Bar Counsel, which investigates, evaluates, and prosecutes complaints against lawyers, will be appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court. (by Sacha Pfeiffer)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss.                          CIVIL ACTION:  05-CV-01907 Barbara C. Johnson, Esq.  Plaintiff v.  Board of Bar Overseers of Massachusetts,  Office of Bar Counsel,  Daniel Crane, Esq.,  in his individual and professional capacities, Susan Strauss-Weisberg, in her individual and professional capacities, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,  Defendants ____________________________________________ VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND ON ALL COUNTS (Plaintiff incorporates by reference the attached exhibits with the same force and effect as if herein set forth)

 

INTRODUCTION             This Complaint includes five causes of action  (1) defamation by “website publication” by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Board of Bar Overseers [“BBO”], and the Office of Bar Counsel [“OBC”], (2) defamation by “first newspaper publication” by Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss-Weisberg,  (3) defamation by “online and second newspaper publication” by Bar Counsel Daniel Crane,  (4) defamation by “improper Certificate of Good Standing” by the Commonwealth, the BBO, the OBC, Daniel Crane and Susan Strauss-Weisberg, and (5) intentional interference with prospective advantageous business and/or contractual relationships. PARTIES 1.     Plaintiff, Barbara C. Johnson ["Johnson"], who resides at 6 Appletree Lane, Andover, Essex County, MA 01810-4102, is (1) an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (2) an attorney admitted to practice in the United States District Court at Boston and the First Circuit Court of Appeals, (3) an Internet publisher located at falseallegations.com, and (4) the Respondent in actions entered in Board of Bar Overseers as Nos. C2-01-0091, C2-01-0090, C2-00-0078, C2-98-0580. 2.               Defendant Board of Bar Overseers of Massachusetts [“BBO”] is located at 99 High Street, 2d floor, Boston, MA 02110-2320. (a)            The BBO is allegedly funded by annual registration fees charged attorneys.  (b)            It was established by a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court [“SJC”] Rules Committee in 1974 as a body to ensure that the Canons of Ethics and Disciplinary Rules Regulating the Practice of Law are observed.\[1]/\[2]/  (c)             The SJC holds the BBO out as an “affiliated entity,” a type of entity which has not been defined in the statutory or common law of this Commonwealth.  (d)            The BBO is an allegedly “administrative” body and allegedly abides by the Administrative Practices Act.   (e)             The BBO is a private body and private employer.  (f)             The BBO is a financially independent body.  (g)            BBO employees receive certain benefits from the SJC.  (h)            The BBO accepts gifts from entities, including but not limited to lawyers and lawfirms.  (i)              The BBO is allegedly a politically independent body.   (j)             The BBO is an allegedly quasi-judicial body. (k)            The BBO allegedly adjudicates complaints brought by the Office of Bar Counsel against lawyers, and recommends to the SJC allegedly appropriate disciplinary action.  3.               Defendant Office of Bar Counsel [“OBC”], located at 99 High Street, 2d floor, Boston, MA 02110-2320, is the prosecutorial arm of the BBO. (a)            The OBC is allegedly funded by annual registration fees charged attorneys.  (b)            The OBC was established by an SJC Rules Committee in 1974.  (c)             The SJC holds the OBC out as an “affiliated entity,” a type of entity which has not been defined in the statutory or common law of this Commonwealth.  (d)            The OBC is allegedly an “administrative” body and allegedly abides by the Administrative Practices Act.   (e)             The OBC is a private body and private employer.  (f)             The OBC is a financially independent body.  (g)            OBC employees receive certain benefits from the SJC.  (h)            The OBC accepts gifts from entities, including but not limited to lawyers and lawfirms.  (i)              The OBC is allegedly a politically independent body.   (j)             The OBC body allegedly investigates, evaluates, and prosecutes complaints against lawyers. 4.               Defendant Daniel Crane  [“Crane”], who is a resident of Mas­sachusetts, has been, at all times relevant to this Complaint, (1) an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (2) Bar Counsel, (3) a person who improperly conducted the affairs of the Commonwealth, and (4) accountable to Johnson and the people of the Commonwealth. 5.               Defendant Susan Strauss-Weisberg  [“Weisberg”], who is a resident of Mas­sachusetts, has been, at all times relevant to this Complaint, (1) an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (2) an Assistant Bar Counsel, (3) a person who improperly conducted the affairs of the Commonwealth, and (4) accountable to Johnson and the people of the Commonwealth. 6.               Defendant Commonwealth of Massachusetts [Commonwealth”] is a body politic that is formed by a voluntary association of individuals, and “is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each Citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain Laws for the Common good” [Preamble.  Massachusetts Constitution] and as an association, according to M.G.L. c. 4 §7, is a person for all purposes under all laws. FACTS              7.               Bar Counsel Crane of the OBC reports to the SJC.             8.               For a period of years, Assistant Bar Counsel Weisberg had written and oral communications with Johnson. 9.               The primary focus of Weisberg’s communications with Johnson was Johnson’s website. 10.            Well aware of their untempered, extraordinary powers, the BBO, the OBC, and the judicial branch of the Commonwealth concluded that it is easier to cenSURe Johnson than to cenSOR the website.\[3]/ \[4]/ 11.            Johnson has been exercising her First Amendment right to political speech and free expression, as well as her right and obligation to see that justice is done, by publishing on her website information related to the unscrupulous acts of judges and other court-appointed persons.\[5]/  This is a matter of public concern.\[6]/ 12.            During 2002, Johnson ran for the office of governor of the Commonwealth on a platform of court reform and the abolishment of judicial and quasi-judicial immunities.  The election occurred on 5 November 2002. 13.            On 24 January 2003, the OBC filed at the BBO a Petition for Discipline [“Petition”] against Johnson. 14.            The ulterior motive of bring the Petition was (a) to interfere with Johnson’s livelihood,\[7]/ (b) to intimidate and coerce Johnson into not using her website as a platform on which to criticize the judiciary, and (c) if she did not regulate her website herself, to regulate Johnson’s website by destroying her honesty, integrity, virtue, and/or personal or business reputation. 15.            The Petition contained three counts based on four BBO files: C2-98-0580 for Count III, C2-00-0078 for Count II, and both C2-01-0090 and C2-01-0091 for Count I. 16.            Weisberg authored the Petition. 17.            Crane was the named plaintiff in the Petition against Johnson. 18.            The requisite approval of the Petition before it was filed in the BBO was given by BBO member Attorney Elizabeth M. Mulvey, who became the Reviewing Board Member.  THE COMMONWEALTH/BBO/OBC WEBSITE PUBLICATION: FROM 24 JANUARY 2003 TO PRESENT               19.            Also on or around 24 January 2003, on a website shared by the Commonwealth, the BBO, and the OBC--http://db.state.ma.us/- obvbbo/bboreg/-lookup.asp\[8]/-- the BBO published next to Johnson's name in an Attorney Status Report a notice informing the public that as of 24 January 2003, disciplinary proceedings against Johnson were pending [Exhibits A(1) and A(2), the two “website publications”]. “1.       1/24/03 XXX: Disciplinary Proceedings Pending” 20.            When the website visitor clicks on Johnson’s name a second screen appears that is uniquely for Johnson.  It contains her name and address and beneath those, the BBO added the line “Disciplinary History” above the notice of pending disciplinary proceedings [Exhibit A(2)].\[9]/ WEISBERG IN THE BOSTON HERALD 21.            On or around the first week in March 2003, Weisberg told untruths, with knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, to Boston Herald Columnist Maggie Mulvihill which were incorporated into a Mulvihill column published on Saturday, 8 March 2003 [“first newspaper publication”] [Exhibit B]. 22.            The defamatory statements by Defendant Weisberg were, including but not limited to, the following [Exhibit B]: : (a)            that Johnson posted “‘highly sensitive’ information on her Web site --  ‘falseallegations.com’  -- about a child in a paternity action in which Johnson represented a father who was accused of sexually abusing the boy”;   (b)            that “the information included  ‘particulars of the  boy’s evaluation and therapy .  . . the therapists’ finding  concerning the abuse and ensuing trauma’”; (c)             that “in Weisberg’s view, who said the only ‘substantial purpose’ Johnson had  in posting the  photos was to ‘embarrass or burden’ the boy and his mother’”; and (d)            that Weisberg pejoratively “claim[ed] that  Johnson spent part of a $10,000 client retainer on her own personal expenses.” 23.            On Tuesday, 2 December 2003, a trial on the Petition was scheduled. CRANE IN THE EAGLE TRIBUNE  24.            On or around Thursday, 18 December 2003, Defendant Bar Counsel Crane told Eagle-Tribune Reporter Shawn Regan that he expected the OBC to announce Johnson's fate within two to four months [Exhibit C(1)]. 25.            That so-called “fate” was the awaited-for Recommendation by the Special Hearing Officer, not the conclusion of the Board,\[10]/ for the Board makes its decision only after the appeal, if any, of the Findings and Recommendation of the Special Hearing Officer [“”SHO], and the SHO’s Findings and Recommendation had not yet issued. 26.            Notwithstanding the fact that a Recommendation by the hearing officer(s) is not a final decision, the explicit statement that Crane expected the OBC to announce Johnson's “fate” within two to four months interfered with Johnson’s livelihood by making people believe that she would not be available to handle their cases from two to four months in the future.  27.            In addition to the “fate” statement, Crane intentionally made to Regan other oral false statements, with knowledge of the falsity, for the purpose of impeaching Plaintiff Johnson’s honesty, integrity, virtue, and/or personal or business reputation [Exhibit C(1-3)].   See also ¶29, infra. 28.            The statements or derivative statements originating from Regan’s interview with Crane were published on 19 December 2003 in the Eagle-Tribune newspaper and on the Eagle-Tribune website, at http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20031219/FP_004.htm [“online and second newspaper publication”] [Exhibit C].  29.            The defamatory false statements by Defendant Crane to Regan and subsequently published in the Eagle-Tribune were, including but not limited to, the following [Exhibit C(1-3)]: (a)        that the OBC “was seeking a disciplinary hearing stemming from complaints from two of Johnson's former clients,” (b)            that the anticipated public hearing by the bar counsel began and ended  shortly “after Johnson repeatedly mentioned the names of children and others whose identities were protected by law,” (c)             that “[s]he said mentioning the names of the ‘protected’ individuals was ‘a slip of the tongue,’” (d)            that “[s]he later posted on her Web site the names of the people she mentioned at the hearing, at least one whom was under the protection of a court order,” (e)             that “Johnson published confidential information about the ex-wife of a client accused of sexually and physically abusing his young son. The information was posted on the Internet to ‘embarrass or burden’ the boy's mother, who was at the time running for public office in Bristol County, the complaint alleges,” (f)             that “the complaint further alleges Johnson withheld $7,575 from a client without securing a signed fee agreement,” (g)            that “her client complained to the Bar about the bill, Johnson posted confidential information about the case on her Web site.” THE CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING  30.            On or around 14 March 2005 and in accordance with instructions from the SJC [Exhibit D(1)], Johnson sent an application for a Certificate of Good Standing,  a $15.00 check made payable to Clerk Maura S. Doyle for the certificate,  and a self-addressed stamped envelope to Clerk Doyle at the SJC for Suffolk County, John Adams Courthouse, 1st Floor, One Pemberton Square, Suite 1300, Boston, MA 02108-1707 [Exhibit D(2)]. 31.            Similarly, on or around 14 March 2005 and in accordance with instructions from the SJC [Exhibit D(1)], Johnson sent to the BBO a Request for a Clearance Letter [Exhibit D(3)], which sought the BBO to send a Clearance Letter to the SJC. 32.            Johnson’s stated purpose of applying for a Certificate of Good Standing was to obtain one to use in seeking admission pro hac vice in a foreign State [Exhibit D(2)]. 33.            On 21 March 2005, the SJC issued a Certificate of Good Standing and sent it to Johnson [Exhibit E]: 34.            The Certificate of Good Standing contained 10 BBO file numbers, all of which were squeezed onto the bottom of the 8½” by 11” piece of paper [Exhibit E]: 35.            Four of the file numbers represented the complaints by the complainants in the Petition [Exhibit F(1)]: ·        C2-98-0580, Bar Counsel/Coughlin matter (Count III); ·        C2-00-0078, Deborah and Harry Sano (Count II); ·        C2-01-0090, Robyn Gerry-Sylvia; and ·        C2-01-0091, Bar Counsel/Deborah Wolf for Brenden (Linnehan) Sylvia  (Count I) 36.            Six of the file numbers represented, according to Weisberg, “grievances in ‘held’ status on which no action has been taken in light of the current disciplinary proceedings” [Exhibit F(1)]. 37.            Weisberg had given Johnson notice of three of the six “grievances in ‘held’ status” [Exhibit F(1) and F(2)]: ·        B2-00-0321, Susan Pane, the mother of a child sired by one of Johnson’s clients\[11]/ ·        B2-03-0012, Bar Counsel, allegedly “based on a report by Justice Allen Jarisitis”\[12]/  ·        C2-99-0018, Bar Counsel, based on a reported decision\[13]/  38.            No one at OBC or BBO had given Johnson notice of three of the six “grievances in ‘held’ status” [Exhibit F(1-2); see also Exhibits G, H, I, and J]: º   BB2-00-0166, Bar Counsel/Cappello Matter\[14 º   C2-04-0109, Bar Counsel based on reports by Justices       Sean M. Dunphy, Catherine Sabaitis, and Lisa A.     Roberts\[15]/  and º   C2-04-0253, Bar Counsel based on report by Justice     Dorothy M. Gibson\[16]/ 39.            The form for the Certificate of Good Standing does not provide any space for file or docket numbers. 40.            The form for the Certificate of Good Standing explicitly informs the reader that “Records of private discipline, if any, such as a private reprimand imposed by the Board of Bar Overseers or by any court, are not covered by this certification” [Exhibit E]. 41.            Where a disposition that results in a private reprimand does not preclude the issuance of a Certificate of Good Standing without file numbers on the certificate, disciplinary grievances that have (a) not resulted in any disposition or (b) not been called to the attention of the attorney do not preclude the issuance of a Certificate of Good Standing without file numbers on the certificate [Exhibit E].  42.            Where an attorney’s license has been suspended after the disposition of grievance  procedures, the attorney would not be in “Good Standing” with the BBO and would not be eligible to receive a Certificate of Good Standing. 43.              On 4 April 2005, in a letter to SJC Clerk Maura S. Doyle, Johnson demanded a new Certificate of Good Standing without any docket numbers on it to replace the offensive one sent her previously on March 21st or 22d, 2005 [Exhibit G]. 44.            The SJC refused to issue a corrected Certificate of Good Standing. 45.            Clerk Doyle informed Johnson that the OBC/BBO would not issue a Clearance Letter without the BBO file or docket numbers. 46.            By not issuing to Johnson a Certificate of Good Standing without file numbers and a reference to pending disciplinary grievances, and knowing that Johnson had to submit that certificate to a foreign State for pro hac vice admission, the Commonwealth, through the SJC, was both  violating Johnson’s rights to equal protection but also defaming her [Exhibit E]. 47.            On 8 April 2005, SJC Rules Committee Secretary Christine P. Burak wrote Johnson that the Rules Committee denied Johnson request for a waiver of SJC Rule 4:01, §20(2)(d) on the grounds that that rule does not require that any particular information be included in a Certificate of Admission and Good Standing [Exhibit K]. 48.            Given that SJC Rule 4:01 does not require any particular information be information be included in a Certificate of Admission and Good Standing, that the SJC included the information from the OBC and BBO on the certificate is equivalent to an admission of intentional interference with Johnson’s advantageous or contractual business relationship with a client. 49.            On 7 June 2005, Johnson was not admitted pro hac vice in the foreign State. 50.            The direct and proximate cause of the denial of the pro hac vice admission was the improper Certificate of Good Standing prepared jointly by Weisberg, with Crane’s approval, the OBC, the BBO, and the Commonwealth, through the SJC. 51.            As a result, Johnson was deprived of a paying client. COUNT 1:  DEFAMATION BY THE COMMONWEALTH, THE BBO, AND THE OBC (Website publication) 52.            Johnson repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 51 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 53.            The notification to the public on the joint website of the Commonwealth, the BBO, and the OBC that disciplinary proceedings were pending were words, without more, intended to impeach and defame Plaintiff Johnson’s honesty, integrity, virtue, and/or personal or business reputation. 54.            The continuing publication by the Commonwealth, the BBO, and the OBC on their joint website has been a direct and proximate cause of the harm Johnson has suffered, specifically the harm from stress, humiliation, anxiety, fear for her safety and well-being, loss of trust, loss of confidence in and feelings of betrayal by the jus­tice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all compensable as emotional distress, and other damages. \[17]/ 55.            As a result of the website publication, Johnson has been damaged, including but not limited to a loss of income.             WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Johnson prays that she be awarded judgment against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the BBO, and the OBC, jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, and compensatory damages, costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and interest, and that she be granted such other relief deemed to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.      COUNT 2:   DEFAMATION BY SUSAN STRAUSS-WEISBERG                                      FOR STATEMENTS        TO COLUMNIST AND PUBLISHED IN BOSTON HERALD 56.            Johnson repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 55 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 57.            On or around the first week in March 2003, Weisberg told a series of untruths, with knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, to Boston Herald Columnist Maggie Mulvihill which was incorporated into a Mulvihill column published on Saturday, 8 March 2003 [“first newspaper publication”] [Exhibit B]. 58.            The defamatory statements of Weisberg which were intended to impeach Plaintiff Johnson’s honesty, integrity, virtue, and/or personal or business reputation were, including but not limited to, the following [Exhibit B]: (a)            that Johnson posted “‘highly sensitive’ information on her Web site --  ‘falseallegations.com’  -- about a child in a paternity action in which Johnson represented a father who was accused of sexually abusing the boy”; (b)            that “the information included  ‘particulars of the  boy’s evaluation and therapy .  . . the therapists’ finding  concerning the abuse and ensuing trauma’”; (c)             that “in Weisberg’s view, who said the only ‘substantial purpose’ Johnson had  in posting the  photos was to ‘embarrass or burden’ the boy and his mother’”; and (d)            that Weisberg pejoratively “claim[ed] that  Johnson spent part of a $10,000 client retainer on her own personal expenses.”  59.            The publication of Weisberg’s statements in the Boston Herald has been a direct and proximate cause of the harm Johnson has suffered, specifically, the harm from stress, humiliation, anxiety, fear for her safety and well-being, loss of trust, loss of confidence in and feelings of betrayal by the jus­tice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all compensable as emotional distress, and other damages. 60.            As a result of the publication in the Boston Herald, Johnson has been damaged, including but not limited to a loss of income.             WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Johnson prays that she be awarded judgment against Susan Strauss-Weisberg for actual, general, special, and compensatory damages, costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and interest, and that she be granted such other relief deemed to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.  COUNT 3:   DEFAMATION BY DANIEL CRANE FOR STATEMENTS TO REPORTER AND PUBLISHED IN EAGLE-TRIBUNE 61.            Johnson repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 60 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 62.            On or around Thursday, 18 December 2003, Defendant Daniel Crane told Reporter Shawn Regan one or more oral false statements, with knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, that were intended to impeach Plaintiff Johnson’s honesty, integrity, virtue, and/or personal or business reputation. 63.            The defamatory statements were, including but not limited to, the following: (a)            that the OBC “was seeking a disciplinary hearing stemming from complaints from two of Johnson's former clients,” (b)            that the anticipated public hearing by the bar counsel began and ended  shortly “after Johnson repeatedly mentioned the names of children and others whose identities were protected by law,” (c)             that “[s]he said mentioning the names of the ‘protected’ individuals was ‘a slip of the tongue,’” (d)            that “[s]he later posted on her Web site the names of the people she mentioned at the hearing, at least one whom was under the protection of a court order,” (e)             that “Johnson published confidential information about the ex-wife of a client accused of sexually and physically abusing his young son. The information was posted on the Internet to ‘embarrass or burden’ the boy's mother, who was at the time running for public office in Bristol County, the complaint alleges,” (f)             that “the complaint further alleges Johnson withheld $7,575 from a client without securing a signed fee agreement,” (g)            that “her client complained to the Bar about the bill, Johnson posted confidential information about the case on her Web site.” 64.            The statements given by Crane to Regan were published on 19 December 2003 both in the Eagle-Tribune, located at North Andover, Massachusetts, and on the Eagle-Tribune’s website at http://www.eagle-tribune.com/news/stories/20031219/FP_004.htm. 65.            The newspaper publication of false statements by Daniel Crane has been a direct and proximate cause of harm to Johnson, specifically, harm from stress, humiliation, anxiety, fear for her safety and well-being, loss of trust, loss of confidence in and feelings of betrayal by the jus­tice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all compensable as emotional distress, and other damages. 66.            As a result of the publication in the Eagle-Tribune and on its website, Johnson has been damaged.             WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Johnson prays that she be awarded judgment against Daniel Crane for actual, general, special, and compensatory damages, costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and interest, and that she be granted such other relief deemed to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.  COUNT 4:  DEFAMATION BY COMMONWEALTH OF                     MASSACHUSETTS, DANIEL CRANE, SUSAN STRAUSS-WEISBERG, THE BBO. AND THE OBC                         (Certificate of Good Standing) 67.            Johnson repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 66 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 68.            On or around 14 March 2005, Johnson made application to the Supreme Judicial Court for Certificate of Good Standing [Exhibit D(2)]. 69.            On or around 14 March 2005, Johnson made a Request to the BBO registration department for a Clearance Letter [Exhibit D(3)]. 70.            Johnson’s stated purpose of applying for a Certificate of Good Standing was to use it in seeking admission pro hac vice in a foreign State [Exhibit D(2)]. 71.            On 21 March 2005, the SJC issued a Certificate of Good Standing that contained 10 BBO file numbers that were not contemplated by the SJC form. 72.            The lack of space for file or docket numbers and SJC Rule 4:01 make it clear that no information, including but not limited to BBO file numbers, are contemplated or required before a Certificate of Good Standing may be issued [Exhibits E and K]. 73.            Four of the file numbers represented the complaints by the complainants in the Petition [Exhibit F(1)].  Six of the file numbers represented “grievances in ‘held’ status on which no action has been taken in light of the current disciplinary proceedings” [Exhibit F(1)]. 74.            Of the six “grievances in ‘held’ status” [Exhibit F(1-2)], Johnson had had no notice. 75.            “Records of private discipline, if any, such as a private reprimand imposed by the Board of Bar Overseers or by any court, are not covered by this certification” [Exhibit E]. 76.            Where the 10 disciplinary grievances noted on the Certificate of Good Standing did not result in any disposition, the OBC’s file numbers for them were improperly sent on the Clearance Letter by Weisberg, with Crane’s approval, to the SJC for inclusion on the Certificate. 77.            The SJC then improperly included them on the Certificate. 78.            The issuing of an intentionally improper or unlawful Clearance Letter and Certificate, which combination of acts resulted (a) in the unlawful deprivation of Johnson’s rights both to due process and equal protection of the laws, (b) defamation, and (c) the interference with her livelihood. 79.            Where there has been no disposition of the Petition and Johnson’s license has not been suspended, Johnson was and is entitled to a proper Certificate of Good Standing, without any OBC/BBO file numbers on it. 80.            The BBO, the OBC, Crane, and Weisberg refused to issue a proper Clearance Letter without the BBO file numbers. 81.            The Commonwealth, through the SJC, refused to issue a proper Certificate of Good Standing, one without any docket numbers on it to replace the harmful one, dated 21 March 2005. 82.            Where SJC Rule 4:01 does not require any particular information be information be included in a Certificate of Admission and Good Standing but the SJC included the information from the OBC and BBO on the certificate, the Commonwealth, through the SJC, intentionally defamed Johnson. 83.            The improper Certificate of Good Standing was a direct and proximate cause of harm to Johnson, specifically, harm from stress, humiliation, anxiety, fear for her safety and well-being, loss of trust, loss of confidence in and feelings of betrayal by the jus­tice system, shock, and emotional scarring, all compensable as emotional distress, and damages, including but not limited to waste of time, effort, and loss of income.             WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Johnson prays that she be awarded judgment against the Commonwealth, OBC, the BBO, Crane, and Weisberg, jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, and compensatory damages, costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and interest, and that she be granted such other relief deemed to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.  COUNT 5:   INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ADVANTAGEOUS BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH A CLIENT 84.            Johnson repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 83 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. 85.        From both Johnson’s Application for a Certificate of Good Standing and her Request for a Clearance Letter, all the defendants knew that Johnson was applying for pro hac vice admission to a foreign State in order to represent a client in that State. 86.            That the representation would be financially advantageous is a reasonable inference to be drawn from those circumstances. 87.            By not providing a proper Clearance Letter and a proper Certificate of Good Standing, Commonwealth, the OBC, the BBO, Crane, and Weisberg intentionally interfered with Johnson’s prospective advantageous business relationship with a client for whom Johnson was his lawyer of choice and who therefore wanted Johnson to represent him in a foreign State. 88.            The defendants’ interference, in addition to being intentional, was improper in motive or means. 89.            On 7 June 2005, Johnson was not admitted pro hac vice in the foreign State, as a result of the improper Clearance Letter and Certificate of Good Standing prepared jointly by Weisberg, with Crane’s approval, the OBC, the BBO, and the Commonwealth, through the SJC. 90.            Johnson suffered economic harm as a result of the defendants’ conduct.            WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Johnson prays that she be awarded judgment against all the defendants for actual, general, special, and compensatory damages, and further demands judgment for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and interest, and that she be granted such other relief deemed to be just and fair and in any other way in which the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully Submitted,
                                                                        Barbara C. Johnson, Pro se

               PLAINTIFF'S VERIFICATION

  The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says that I am the
Plaintiff herein, and have read the foregoing pleading filed on my behalf,
and the facts stated therein are true.

 

31 October 2005 

Barbara C. Johnson, Esq.  


Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 31st day of October 2005.  

_________________________
Notary Public

[1]      In the common law, the BBO and the OBC “do not enjoy immunity from intentional torts under  § 10(c) [of G.L. c. 258, the Mass. Tort Claims Act].”  Lafayette Place Associates v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, 427 Mass. 509, 529 (1998).  The leading case on this matter is Kargman v. Boston Water & Sewer Comm'n, 18 Mass.App.Ct. 51 (1984), see Commesso v. Hingham Hous. Auth., 399 Mass. 805, 808 (1987).  The BBO and the OBC are not creatures of the Legislature, and are allegedly financially and politically independent.    [2]     Com. v. Ellis, 429 Mass. 362, 371 (1999): “Article 5 [in Part the First, the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts], . . . provides that officers [including judges] of government ‘are at all times accountable to [the people].’” [3]    Justice Black wrote, in words for all intents and purposes, the goal of a tyrannical government is to deprive its citizens of independence.  In that way, they become “nothing more than parrots of the views of whatever group wields governmental power at the moment.” Cohen v Hurley, 366 U.S. 117, 138 (1961) (Mr. Justice Black, with whom The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Douglas concur, dissenting).  Cohen, a 5-to-4 decision, was overruled in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 514 (U.S.N.Y. 1967).. [4]              The majority is holding . . . that lawyers are not entitled to the full sweep of due process protections because they had no such protections against judges or their fellow lawyers in England. But I see no reason why this generation of Americans should be deprived of a part of its Bill of Rights on the basis of medieval English practices that our Forefathers left England, fought a revolution and wrote a Constitution to get rid of. Cohen, at 142 (dissent).   Fearing that the majority opinion in Cohen implied that “a lawyer is not to have the protection of the First Amendment with regard to his private beliefs and associations whenever his exercise of those freedoms might interfere with his duty to ‘co-operate’ with a judge’” [id. at 145], they wrote. It seems to me that the majority takes a fundamentally unsound position when it endorses a practice based upon the artificial notion that rights and privileges can be stripped from a man in his capacity as a lawyer without affecting the rights and privileges of that man as a man. Id. at 145 (dissent). [5]   Mass.R.Prof.C. 8.3(b).. Reporting Professional Misconduct, and Comment. [6]    See Dexter’s Hearthside Restaurant, Inc. v. WHitehall Co., 24 Mass.App.Ct.  217, 221 (1987), citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,, 418 U.S. 323 (1974).  “[C]ustomary types of actual harm inflicted by defamatory falsehood include impairment of reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering.” Liquori v. Republican Co., 8 Mass.App.Ct. 671, 679 (1979).  “[T]he Gertz opinion also apparently provides that a State may constitutionally permit the award of punitive damages to a plaintiff who proves under the New York Times Co. standard, wilful or reckless defamation by a publisher or broadcaster.  Id. at 349, 94 S.Ct. 2997.  Presumably in such aggravated cases, the damages may be permitted as private fines levied by civil juries to punish reprehensible conduct and to deter its future occurrence.”  Stone v. Essex County Newspapers, Inc., 367 Mass. 849, 860 (1975). [7]     The idea for the latter motive arose in Judge James McHugh’s opinion in a case in which Johnson represented the plaintiff.  The OBC levied a charge sua sponte against Johnson after being alerted to the opinion in the Lawyers Weekly.  [8]     At a later date, the three entities changed servers and the website became http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/board.htm, and the URL relevant to this case became http://massbbo.org/bbolookup.php. [9]     http://massbbo.org/bbolookup.php?sl=johnson&sf=barbara&sc=&soundex=&hit=2. [10]    Perhaps Crane’s use of the word “fate” was a slip of the tongue.  The decision expected was not a final decision on the Petition but a recommendation to the Board by the Special Hearing Office. Were it not a slip of the tongue, then it was an admission by Crane that the disciplinary process is political and that the decisions of the hearing officer or a panel or the Board are not based upon the merits. [11]   Exhibit G(3), Endnote 1, Case Two. [12]   Exhibit G(3), Endnote 1, Case Three; and Exhibit I (Johnson’s answer incorporating Weisberg’s letter to her re Jarasitis). [13]   Exhibit G(3), Endnote 1, Case One; ; and Exhibit H. [14]   Exhibit G(3), Endnote 2. [15]   Exhibit G(4), Endnotes 3-6.  Justices Dunphy, Sabaitis, and Roberts’ complaint(s) were filed at the BBO on 21, 26, and 29 April 2004, respec- tively.  Johnson’s open letter to them [Exhibits H] had been written and uploaded to Johnson’s website two months’ earlier, on or around 11 February 2004.  Exhibit G(4), Endnote 6.  [16]   On or around 26 April 2004, Johnson filed a complaint in the Commission on Judicial Conduct against Judge Gibson.  On 24 September 2004, the CJC notified Johnson that it dismissed the complaint. On 25 October 2004, Judge Gibson filed her complaint against Johnson at the BBO/OBC. [17]            The rule is well settled, however, that if the natural consequence of the wrongful act, done willfully or with gross negligence, is mental suffering to the plaintiff, then that element may be considered in as­sessing damages. Stiles, 233 Mass. at 185, cites omitted.  "Good faith and absence of malice in the perpetration of such a palpable wrong to the plaintiff constitute no defense to the defendants against the almost inevitable effect of their acts."  Id.

LIST OF VERIFIED COMPLAINT EXHIBITS ExhibitTitle of Exhibit A1        Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers -- Attorney Status Report A2         Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers -- Attorney Status Report for Johnson B       Maggie Mulvihill, “The Bar better be prepared for battle,” Boston Herald, March 8, 2003 C        Shawn Regan, “Bar counsel cracks down on Andover lawyer,” Eagle-Tribune, December 19, 2003 D1      Instructions for Obtaining a Certificate of Admission and Good Standing D2      Application for Certificate of Good Standing, March 14, 2005 D3      Clearance Letter Request Form E        Certificate of Good Standing, March 21, 2005 F        Letter from Susan Strauss-Weisberg to Johnson, March 31, 2005, re file numbers on Certificate of Good Standing G       Letter from Barbara C. Johnson to Clerk Maura S. Doyle, April 4, 2005, re file numbers on Certificate of Good Standing H       Letter to Six Justices, February 11, 2004: Justices Margaret Marshall, Sean Dunphy, Catherine Sabaitis, Lisa A. Roberts, Edward Donnelly, and Dorothy Gibson I        Letter from Barbara C. Johnson to-Susan Strauss-Weisberg, June 20, 2003, incorporating Weisberg’s letter of June 13, 2003, re Judge Allen J. Jarasitis.No response from Weisberg ever received. J       Letter from Robert Guttentag to Barbara C. Johnson,, September 24, 2004, re dismissal by Commission on Judicial Conduct of complaint again Judge Dorothy Gibson K      Letter from Christine P. Burak, Secy., SJC Rules Committee, to Johnson,, April 8, 2005, re Request to waive Supreme Judicial Court Rule 4:01, §20(2)(d)

 

EXHIBIT A (1 of 2) Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers 99 High Street  Boston, Ma. 02110  Attorney Status Report Results of search for.. barbara johnson . Click any Name for more details.   Name Billdate Tel# & Firm Address Discipline Barbara Johnson - Active  December 75 Cleveland Lane  Princeton NJ 08540   Barbara C Johnson - Active  December (978) 474-0833 6 Appletree Lane  Andover MA 01810-4102 1/24/03 XXX: Disciplinary Proceedings Pending Barbara E Johnson - Active  December 617-696-2804 1168 Randolph Ave.  Milton MA 02186   Barbara M Johnson - Active  September Choate Hall & Stewart LLP 617-248-5000 Two International Place  Boston MA 02110   Click HERE to SEARCH AGAIN! or HERE to return to the main page.

 

EXHIBIT A(2 of 2) Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers  of the Supreme Judicial Court 99 High Street  Boston, Ma. 02110 Attorney Status Report Barbara C Johnson  (978) 474-0833  6 Appletree Lane Andover MA 01810-4102  Admitted to the bar on 1987-12-22 Current status is Active Next Registration : December  Full office addresses for active status attorneys only. Disciplinary History  1/24/03 XXX: Disciplinary Proceedings Pending Data as of 2005-10-24  Click HERE to SEARCH AGAIN! or HERE to return to the main page.

 

EXHIBIT B

 

EXHIBIT C (1 of 3) Friday, December 19, 2003 Bar counsel cracks down on Andover lawyer  By Shawn Regan  Staff Writer  BOSTON -- Barbara C. Johnson, the Andover lawyer and fathers' rights activist who ran for governor last year, said she expects to be disbarred from the practice of law after she stormed out of a disciplinary hearing on charges she posted confidential information about divorce and custody cases on her Web site.   Bar Counsel Daniel C. Crane said he expects the Office of Bar Counsel to announce Johnson's fate within two to four months. Lesser options include a public reprimand or suspension of the 69-year-old Johnson's license to practice law in Massachusetts. But given the seriousness of the charges, Johnson herself is convinced she will be disbarred.   "I expect they will revoke my license quickly," Johnson said yesterday. "They can't wait to get rid of me."   Johnson, who ran for governor as an independent, became known for her combative demeanor, raspy voice and disheveled appearance in several televised gubernatorial debates leading up to the 2002 election. A former textbook editor and consultant, she has been a member of the Massachusetts Bar since 1987.   She claims the bar counsel and the Board of Bar Overseers have been "after her" ever since she campaigned for governor on a platform of court reform, including an end to judicial immunity, which protects judges from being sued over their rulings.   EXHIBIT C (2 of 3)  The Office of Bar Counsel -- an independent body that works with the state Supreme Judicial Court in prosecuting lawyers -- notified Johnson earlier this year that it was seeking a disciplinary hearing stemming from complaints from two of Johnson's former clients and a contempt of court order from a judge. The bar counsel's decision can be appealed first to the Board of Bar Overseers and then to the Supreme Judicial Court.   Johnson's participation in what was supposed to be a three-day public hearing by the bar counsel began and ended Dec. 2, shortly after she began her opening statement. The proceedings were closed to the public, and Johnson's supporters and witnesses were ordered to leave after Johnson repeatedly mentioned the names of children and others whose identities were protected by law, despite numerous warnings to stop, Crane said.   After the hearing was closed, Johnson also left the courtroom, though she was told she could stay, Crane said. She said mentioning the names of the "protected" individuals was "a slip of the tongue" and that she left with the public because she didn't trust the board to keep an honest record of the hearing. She later posted on her Web site the names of the people she mentioned at the hearing, at least one whom was under the protection of a court order.   The bar counsel's complaint alleges Johnson published confidential information about the ex-wife of a client accused of sexually and physically abusing his young son. The information was posted on the Internet to "embarrass or burden" the boy's mother, who was at the time running for public office in Bristol County, the complaint alleges.  EXHIBIT C (3 of 3)  Johnson's Web site, www.falseallegations.com, promotes the cause of fathers she says are falsely accused of abuse in divorce and child custody cases. It also answers legal questions for a fee -- starting at $10 for a "yes" or "no" answer -- and sells "sexually explicit" movie scripts to help support the site.   In a second complaints against her, Johnson is accused of failing to deposit a $10,000 check from a client into a trust fund. The complaint further alleges Johnson withheld $7,575 from a client without securing a signed  fee agreement. The complaint alleges the bill was "inaccurate and intentionally false." When her client complained to the Bar about the bill, Johnson posted confidential information about the case on her Web site.   The third charge is that Johnson failed to turn over discovery evidence to opposing counsel after being ordered to do so by a judge.   Although she had planned to retire a year ago, Johnson said she now wants to continue practicing law on behalf of those who cannot afford private attorneys. She said she plans to fight disbarment, if that is the board's decision, all the way to the SJC.   "I have a tremendous pro bono practice," she said. "What's upsetting is that if they take away my law license, I won't be able to continuing helping poor people, like the ones who visit my Web site. Whom will they rely on?"   Johnson said she intends to file a federal lawsuit against the bar counsel and the bar overseers.   "I will be suing for millions and if I get the money, years down the line, I will be setting up a fund to help change the system and get better representation for poor people," she said.    Copyright© 2003 Eagle-Tribune Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Contact Online editor

 

EXHIBIT D (1 of 3) Instructions for Obtaining a Certificate of Admission and Good Standing certificate-4-good-standing-application.pdf

EXHIBIT D (2 of 3) Commonwealth of Massachusetts SUFFOLK, SS.                                                                                          SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Application for Certificate of Good Standing I, _____Barbara C. Johnson_________________________________________ of the Law Office of Barbara C. Johnson, 6 Appletree Lane, Andover, MA 01810-4102 (Business name and complete address) in the County of                                    Essex                                     was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in                                         1997_____                                             (Year of Admission) I, on Oath, depose and say: 1. That since my admission, I have practiced law in the following Jurisdictions: West Newton and Newtonville, Massachusetts       1987                              1993      (City and State)                                                  (Year               to            Year)  Andover, Massachusetts                                     1993                            2005 (currently)      (City and State)                                                  (Year               to            Year) 2. That there are no charges now pending against me or any charges against me that have resulted in discipline before any Bar Association, the Board of Bar Overseers, or the Court of this Commonwealth, or any where else, except: Case                Pending or Disposed              Disposition                   Date of Disposition C2-98-0580, C2-00-0078    Brought as one case C2-01-0090, C2-01-0091     Pending                               None                                        ---______   There were two brought around 1992 by the OBC or BBO sua sponte, involving Judges McHugh and Lopez, respectively.   I recall neither the docket numbers nor the dates of disposition.  Hazily, I think “McHugh” was a private reprimand and “Lopez” was dismissed. I am requesting a certification of admission and good standing for the purpose of: being admitted pro hac vice in a foreign State.___________________________ This statement is made under the penalties of perjury.  G.L. c. 268, section 1A.* 14 March 2005______________________________________________________ Date                                                                            Signature *Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 268, section 1A provides: No written statement required by law shall be required to be verified by oath or affirmation before a magistrate if it contains or is verified by a written declaration that is made under the penalties or perjury.  Whoever signs and issues such a written statement containing or verified by such a written declaration shall be guilty of perjury and subject to the penalties thereof if such statement is willfully false in a material matter.”

EXHIBIT D (3 of 3)

EXHIBIT E

 

EXHIBIT F (1 of 2)

EXHIBIT F (2 of 2)

 

EXHIBIT G (1 of 3)   Barbara C. Johnson Attorney at Law 6 Appletree Lane Andover, MA 01810-4102 978-474-0833FAX 978-474-1833 email: barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net 4 April 2005 Clerk Maura S. Doyle Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County  John Adams Courthouse, 1st Floor One Pemberton Square – Suite 1300  Boston, MA 02108-1707 Dear Clerk Doyle: Approximately two weeks ago, you sent me a Certificate of Good Standing. On the bottom, in the margin of the form, were BBO docket numbers.While I recognized some of the docket numbers, others were unknown to me.I was told to make inquiry of the OBC/BBO of the discrepancies, and I did. Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss-Weisberg immediately sent me a letter explaining that some of the numbers were assigned to complaints of which no investigation was performed and about which I had not been informed.Others were of matters I thought dismissed [ENDNOTE[1]]. I had intended to use the Certificate of Good Standing to supplement my already-submitted affidavit to a foreign court in hopes of being granted pro hac vice admission to the bar of that jurisdiction.Because I had not included in my affidavit the docket numbers or details of those cases unbeknownst to me, the inclusion of those docket numbers on the Certificate of Good Standing makes it appear that I am dishonest.My reaction was revulsion at the underhandedness and bad faith of the OBC and BBO once again.The reaction of the judge in the foreign jurisdiction would be one of revulsion of me were I to submit the Certificate of Good Standing provided me. But for the cases discussed in some detail in ENDNOTE 1 and one complaint generated in 2000 [ENDNOTE[2]], all the complaints were generated by judges in 2004: three in April 2004 and one in October 2004 [ENDNOTE[3]]. Clearly the complaints were/are to be used to enhance any recommendation the BBO might make when they ultimately made/make a final decision regarding the disciplinary petition levied against me a month after the election in which I ran for governor on a platform calling for court reform and the abolishment of judicial and quasijudicial immunity.  Although the judicial displeasure allegedly arises from my allegedly unprofessional conduct in diverse courts, the only document included in the package was an imperfect copy of a letter [Exhibit A. See Exhibit H below] that I uploaded to my website and emailed [ENDNOTE [4]] to six judges [ENDNOTE [5]] regarding unsagacious decisions made by four of those judges and the personal tragedies that resulted therefrom. EXHIBIT G (2 of 3) Properly considering the totality of the circumstances, one can conclude that the complaints reflected by the “new” BBO-docket numbers that appeared on the Certificate of Good Standing have political origins.As such, the sincerity and truth of those complaints are highly questionable. To include the docket numbers of politically-motivated complaints on my Certificate of Good Standing is a clear attempt not only to interfere with my potentially advantageous business relationship with an out-of-state prospective client but also to defame me both professionally and personally.The attempt is also retaliatory, for I have, as this Court is likely aware, sued in federal court the BBO, the OBC, Bar Counsel Daniel Crane, former Chair of the BBO M. Ellen Carpenter (former partner of Justice Sosman), and Special Hearing Officer Herbert Phillips.That case is pending in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.Amongst the issues are the absence of due process at the BBO and the quasijudicial and quasiprosecutorial immunities protecting for the time being all board and staff members of the OBC and BBO. According to Michael Fredrickson, General Counsel to the BBO, and Pam Lyons of this Court, the BBO docket numbers were requested by this Court in accordance with a rule of this court [ENDNOTE [6]].Implementation of that policy must be precluded here.It aids and abets serious defamation and violates my constitutional right to due process.There has been no notice, no opportunity to cross-examine my accusers, no investigation, no process of any kind, no dispositions, and the brevis complaints contain only “bald assertions, unsubstantiated conclusions, and outright vituperation,” all of which we litigators know we must avoid. . . .  For the above reasons, I demand a new Certificate of Good Standing without any docket numbers on it to replace the offensive one sent me previously on March 21st or 22d.The form does not even contain a line for such information.And there has been no disposition on any of them.Particularly where the form states that private reprimands are not covered by the certification, certainly uninvestigated complaints also must not be covered by it.To include the docket numbers of the uninvestigated complaints is tantamount to creating an unwritten change in the rule so as to have a detrimental effect on me, thereby making it similar to a violation of the prohibition against bills of attainder. Further, the inclusion of those docket numbers is a cruel, abusive, and injudicious use of judicial power, certainly not a power intended to be countenanced by the Framers of our State and Federal constitutions. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, ________________________________ Barbara C. Johnson, Esq. cc:Kathleen O’Donnell, Esq., Chair of Massachusetts Bar Association [“MBA”] Roy Bourgeois, Esq., Chair of the MBA Task Force reviewing the BBO and OBC EXHIBIT G (3 of 3) ____________________ ENDNOTES [1]Case One.One complaint dates back to 1994-1995, when I hired a landscaper, Parks, to follow my landscape designer’s plan for my front garden, purchase the plants itemized on her plan, and plant them.I fully paid him for the product he had delivered and the labor he had performed.Then, with the help of the small claims court (Flatley, J.) and later an appellate panel, Parks successfully ripped me off for an extra $1500-2000 for plants that he had never delivered. Unfortunately, my landscape designer, who had overseen the project, moved suddenly to somewhere in Texas when her husband was transferred, and was by the time of trial, “missing.”Parks used his knowledge of that fact to invent statements allegedly said by her out of court. The trial judge not only refused to limit Parks’ false testimony but also refused to give a missing-witness instruction.The appeals court shamefully upheld the lower-court judge.This was a private case between me and a conman who pretended that he was an honest landscaper and whom I unfortunately had hired to supply and plant plants.He did not perform his part of our written bargain.I ended up having to furnish the plants myself at considerable cost. There would likely have been justice had there been an intelligent judge on the bench. It certainly was not a case that is covered by the Professional Rules of Conduct. In her letter of the other day, Susan Strauss-Weisberg wrote (1) that in 1999, the case had been given to her for review and (2) that she had told me that she was holding the case and that I need not respond.So I am both shocked and furious that the assigned docket number appears on my Certificate of Good Standing. Case Two.Another complaint dates back to December 2000.I responded to Weisberg on 8 January 2001.Not having heard about it during the last 4+ years until a few days ago, I thought it had been dismissed. The complaint was made by the estranged girlfriend, Susan Pane, who mothered the child of a client of mine.Pane was believed to be a prescription drug addict, oxycotin being her drug of choice.The child was not developing properly because, so it was believed, the child was being affected by the drugs while being breastfed.Fearing that the child’s muscles would atrophy, he ran off with the child to seek and get her proper medical help.During March 2001, he and the child were located in Oklahoma.I defended him in a Parental Kidnapping case and in May 2002, a jury took a lunch time and about 20 or 25 minutes to find him Not Guilty.That story, too, is on my website.Put “Meuse” in the search tool to find it.There are simply too many pleadings to attach hereto this letter.My client has sued Pane et al in federal court under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and a few common-law theories.That complaint remains alive and well. Case Three.A third complaint was a complaint written by Asst. Bar Counsel Strauss-Weinberg herself.It was purported to be from Judge Alan Jarasitis, but I have never seen to this day any complaint against me signed by Jarasitis.Hereto this letter, I attach as Exhibit B[see Exhibit I below] the letter I wrote to Strauss-Weisberg on 20 June 2003 regarding what I regarded to be a BBO scam.The entire story has been on my website since then.Note my “cc” to “Viewers of my website.”There was fraud by either Weisberg or Jarasitis on that one, which is why I never heard anything more about it and thought the fraudulent complaint had been dismissed.Of course, the judiciary still owes me the money Jarasitis awarded me. [2]I have no clue as to what or why Judge Fabricant wrote to the Bar Counsel.In her one-page complaint, she wrote that the OBC should listen to the tapes because my conduct “may be more readily apparent in the reporter’s tape recordings than in a written transcript.”Fabricant, J., letter dated 9 June 2000 to the Bar Counsel.No description of any offending physical conduct taken while I was silent appeared in the letter, and five years after the fact, I have absolutely no memory of anything physical that I did also silently. I know I lived through some outrageous judicial decisions in the one case I had before her.My client would have appealed but she could not afford the $12,000 for the trial transcript.So Fabricant got away with outrageous abuse of discretion. [3]Justice Dunphy’s complaint is dated 4/21/04; Judge Sabaitis’s, 4/26/04; Judge Roberts’s, 4/29/04; and Judge Gibson’s, 10/25/04, soon after the Commission on Judicial Conduct dismissed the complaint I had filed against her [see attached CJC letter, Exhibit C[see Exhibit J below]].  [4]The uploaded letter contained pseudonyms for the parties.The emailed letters contained the parties’ real names. [5]Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and Justices Sean M. Dunphy, Catherine Sabaitis, Lisa A. Roberts, Edward Donnelly, and Dorothy Gibson. The latter three had all been registers for years in probate and family court and had little, if any, experience as litigators and likely had not read a lawcase in equally as many years prior to being sworn in to the bench. Lisa Roberts, of course, had a personal relationship with Former Justice Robert Ford and according to In re Ford, was a primary participant in the scandal reported in that opinion.Her reward for participating in an odorific situation of apparent impropriety was an appointment to the bench. [6]S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 20(2)(d), as amended by 415 Mass. 1307 (1993), and as appearing in 425 Mass. 1327 (1997), provides in pertinent part that "bar counsel or the Board may disclose the pendency, subject matter, and status of an investigation if ... there is a need to notify another person or organization in order to protect the public, the administration of justice, or the legal profession." Here, (1) I never received notice of the judicial complaints and (2) the subject matter – essentially the same in all of them -- has been identified only by bald assertions, not by page or line or sentence or phrase about which the judges were complaining. For instance, one judge said that the OBC should listen to the tapes because my conduct “may be more readily apparent in the reporter’s tape recordings than in a written transcript.”Fabricant, J., letter dated 9 June 2000 to the Bar Counsel.No description of any offending conduct appeared in the letter.

 

EXHIBIT H         COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS    PLYMOUTH, SS. PROBATE & FAMILY COURT NO. 00D-0000-DV1 A. B. Smith Plaintiff v. C. D. Smith Defendant ______________________________________ LETTER TO JUSTICES MARGARET MARSHALL, SEAN M. DUNPHY, CATHERINE SABAITIS, LISA A. ROBERTS, EDWARD DONNELLY, AND DOROTHY GIBSON Dear Justices: I am writing and filing this highly unusual letter in three cases:\1/ \FN1/All three men know each other and of each other’s cases.  There is no breach of confidentiality.  Smith v. Smith, Plymouth Probate & Family Court, NO. 00D-0000-DV1 Jones v. Jones, Middlesex Probate & Family Court, NO. 11D-1111DV1 Doe v. Doe, Suffolk Probate & Family Court, NO. 22D-2222-DV1 As you all, I am assuming, know, I am under personal and  professional attack by the BBO because I am outspoken regarding the injustice throughout the Probate & Family Court system across the  Commonwealth. I am old. I have run out of patience and time. On 1  March 2004, nineteen days from today my proposed findings of fact  and rulings of law are due at the BBO.My days are numbered  thereafter until the BBO will recommend, I also assume, disbarment  because they and whichever powers are behind the Bar Counsel’s  petition for discipline are unhappy with my exercising my  constitutional right to political speech and free expression. Therefore, I have to act fast. The usual fear that strikes most  attorneys, to wit, that they shall be reported to the Bar, has no longer any significance in my life.I have been stripped of fear.I am  dealing with reality. The Smith case:Yesterday, 10 February 2004, was Day 1 of the  Smith divorce trial. Consolidated with the divorce was a trial on a  Complaint for Contempt brought by Wife Smithagainst Husband  Smith on 12 December 2003. On 18 November 2003, Judge Sabaitis had found Husband Smith in  contempt of not paying alleged out-of-pocket medical costs of $865.  Husband Smith has insisted no bills by medical practitioners were  ever presented to him. Wife’s attorney, G H ["H"], simply wrote the  amount on the Complaint. That is not evidence. At no time was  Husband Smith allowed to cross-examine his accusers; at no time was Wife required to produce evidence that she had expended $865 out of  pocket for medical expenses. The December 22nd Complaint for  Contempt was based on the November 18th order. Yesterday, while cross-examining Wife, the first time since 2002 that  she had been put on the stand, Judge Sabaitis refused to allow me to  ask about what bills and/or expenses comprised the $865. She said the  issue had been adjudicated and that it was res judicata. I responded that  the first order was unlawful, in that no evidence had been taken to  reach the determination of contempt and that an unlawful order is  void ab initio, and therefore Husband Smith had no need to comply  with it. I offered to supply her a brief. She did not want one. Further, my attempts to cross-examine Wife on one of her Financial  Statements was also aborted by Judge Sabaitis. The cross-examination is far from complete, but given the injudicious rulings of Judge  Sabaitis thus far, the prognosis of that examination is not good.  Clearly her notions of due process do not comport with those of the  highest courts in the Commonwealth and our country. One of the judge’s colleagues on the bench, Judge Prudence  McGregor, recently in Panaro v. Grady, 31 M.L.W. 391, slip op. at 56  (Lawyers Weekly, No. 15-009-02 (88 pages) (Bristol Probate & Family  Court) (Docket No. 01D-0186-DV1), gave custody to the father  forthwith because the mother lied on her Financial Statements. Wife Smith has similarly lied on her Financial Statements. Husband  Smith has gathered documentary proof of the prevarications. If he is  not entitled to cross-examine on the items in the Financial Statements,  there is no sense of the court to make the filing of them mandatory. Inequitable asininity is both costly to both clients and their counsel,  and unacceptable for any system purporting to be a justice system. Husband Smith seeks a mistrial and the recusal of Judge Sabaitis.   Interlocutory appeal would be futile. Rubber-stamping and summary  dismissals are routine.   NOTE (not in original letter) I persisted in objecting, moving for a mistrial, and making a thorough record.  Ultimately Judge Sabaitis did ultimately declare a mistrial and recused herself. The Jones case: Husband Jones and Wife Jones, both lawyers, weredivorced several years ago. The Joneses have two children, of whom Wife has physical custody. (One, being physically abused by both hismother and his sister, is quite unhappy in that custody and looksforward to being put in the custody of his father.) And Wife has possession of the once-marital home, worth well over $600,000. Husband Jones is renting a walk-up apartment in a rundown building  in ___ Fortunately his artistic talent and taste are impeccable so the  interior is inviting, warm, spotless, and comforting to him and those  visiting.  When post-trial financial matters began to consume more time than  the original divorce proceedings, I was approached by Husband Jones  for representation. Husband Jones is living primarily off of partial  disability insurance payments (approximately $38,000), as a result of  ___due to [dangerous virus]. During the marriage, he and Wife  were law partners in downtown Boston. Since the divorce, both are  solo practitioners. His law practice, now in a home-office, has shrunk  to the point where his earnings from it are de minimus (under  $_____ ).  Wife’s, on the other hand, now located on ___ in ____, has  grown to the point where she has grossed approximately $230,000  annually during the last two years.  Despite the distinctive difference in earning power and income,  Husband Jones has been ordered to pay her child support to that  extent where he had to use all of his retirement funds to meet the  excessive court orders and is in jeopardy of not being able to pay his  own rent each month. So dire is his financial existence that he is  plagued monthly by late charges and overdraft payments. Judge Edward Donnelly and with the recent change in assignments,  Judge Gibson are currently reviewing the bank statements for Wife’s  personal and law-office accounts, which Husband Jones produced a  few weeks ago when he was seeking court intervention with Wife’s  interference with his disability payments and putting him at the brink  of eviction. Wife filed that day a motion to jail him. It was  euphemistically a mean-spirited act with no justifiable basis.  That day, Judge Donnelly, who has quite a pleasant demeanor and  appears to listen very well, said he would give us a decision by the end  of that week. That decision we have yet to receive. Fortunately, I was  able to convince the disability payor to release Husband Jones’s check,  which he received only yesterday, and he had been able to convince  the landlady to await his rent payment, so tragedy has been avoided  this month. But there is still over his head contempt charges due to grossly  inequitable past court orders. That he should be required to pay Wife  child support when her income is between 400 and 500 percent  greater than his is remarkable and smacks of the invidious gender  discrimination against men in the probate and family courts about  which I have been so outspoken and the courts have tried so hard to  hide. That he has not been, of course, awarded alimony because of his  disability is unconscionable. Were he not male, an award of alimony  of at least $2000 a week, given Wife’s proven gross annual income of  approximately ¼ million dollars, would have been instantly granted. Digression: The Chief Justice has published many statements of  late regarding the evaluation of judges and of the high quality of  their performance. I have correspondence with the SJC person in  charge of the survey. As a result of that correspondence and  communication with her, I can confidently state that the survey  was made of only selected lawyers, those friendly with the court. The anxiety caused Husband Jones is considerable. I seek not only a  timely resolution of the matters before Judges Donnelly and Gibson  but also a fair one, one taking into consideration the wide disparity  between the income of Wife and that of Husband Jones.   NOTE (not in original letter) Judge Donnelly not only did not relieve Jones of a child-support obligation, he ordered Jones to pay Wife $1700 of his $3300 monthly disability,  leaving Jones with $1600, an amount less than his rent ($2000 a month).  Thus Donnelly allowed the Wife to increase her earnings by $30,400 a year, which gave  her an annual income of at least $259,400. Donnelly should be, of course, immediately removed from the bench.  There is no reasonable excuse for such an egregious abuse of discretion and lack of humanity. FURTHER UPDATE The son, on his own, decided to move out of mother's plush house and go to live with dad in his apartment.  All is well.  School grades improved.  Although the complaint against Gibson was dismissed, the case got assigned (whether because Gibson had been ill or because of the CJC complaint is unknown), to another judge. The other judge lowered dad's child support to $200 a month, which we believe will end this coming month . . . and hopefully he will get alimony and maybe the house, for mom is alone in the house but for the time the daughter is home from college. The Doe case: I became successor counsel (as I am on the other two cases) when the husband’s case was sinking into the quicksand of the  probate and family court in front of Judge Nancy M. Gould.  Between 10 June 2002 and 9 May 2003, 59 days of divorce trial were heard by  Judge Lisa A. Roberts.Numerous posttrial pleadings were due within  the first 6 weeks after trial and the proposed findings of fact and  rulings of law were due after the next 6 weeks, i.e., by 19 August  2003.It is now 11 February 2004, six months after the proposed  findings and rulings were submitted by the parties and no decision  from the court has issued. The Doe case was fraught with accusations of severe sexual abuse by  the mother’s father, to whose out-of-state home the children were  allowed to be removed without either the consent of Husband Doe or  an evidentiary hearing; with the mother’s repeated dishonesty and  highly questionable conduct (the mother is also a lawyer); and with  evidence of public corruption. Presently, the mother is bearing the child of a man not her husband,  Doe’s [children] are still suffering; Husband Doe is powerless to come to the aid and rescue of his children; the courts have refused to act in  the children’s best interests at any time throughout the entire span of  the divorce proceedings. I fear that the Doe decision will languish until nothing will be  salvageable: the children will be forever wounded and Husband Doe  will be completely broken.  A decision must forthcome soon. The court is playing cruelly with the lives of the children and Husband Doe. The mother frankly is quite  happy with her new boyfriend and has jumped the gun in creating her new family. Her law practice in ____ is flourishing. She, like Wife  Jones, is grossing well over $200,000. Conclusion: Each of the women in the three above cases has  repeatedly filed fraudulent Financial Statements and each of the  women in the above cases has falsely charged her husband with  abuse,\2/ making the immediate award of child custody to the fathers appropriate, as in Panaro v. Grady, a wise and measured decision. \FN2/The women have falsely complained to the police, sought and got restraining orders, and brought criminal charges a minimum of a dozen times between them.Fortunately all charges  against the men were ultimately dismissed. These three cases are only at the current top of my repertoire of  anecdotes of the discriminatory actions in probate and family court.  Because of my activism, I have heard of 100s more, almost, as, and  more severe than these. Something must be done. Platitudes are not enough. Musical chairs of incestual political appointments from committee to committee must  be stopped. New voices, if you will, must be allowed into the arena to be heard. Respectfully submitted, The defendants, By their attorney, 11 February 2004________________________ Barbara C. Johnson, Esq. 6 Appletree Lane Andover, MA 01810-4102  978-474-0833 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barbara C. Johnson, hereby certify that on 11 February 2004, I  emailed and on 12 February 2004, I caused to be served by first-class mail a copy of this document on opposing counsel and the  above-named judges. 11 February 2004                           ________________________ Barbara C. Johnson, Esq. 6 Appletree Lane Andover, MA 01810-4102 978-474-0833 EPILOGUE Case 1 --The Smith Case:Judge Sabaitis called a mistrial on  Day 3 of the trial, recused herself, and ordered that Johnson be  removed as defense counsel.The trial has not yet resumed. Johnson still represents her client.Therefore Judge Roberts,  assigned as a replacement judge, recused herself from the case  at the request of Johnson's client.Negotiations -- on and off -- are still underway.   Case 2 -- The Jones Case:Gibson (1) vacated -- without notice  to Johnson -- the mortgage Jones gave Johnson for her fees and  (2) allowed to the Wife a $250,000 ex parte attachment on Jones's  interest in the marital property.Johnson jumped up and down  and Gibson reduced it to $25,000.Amazingly the attachment  was for FUTURE arrearages the Husband might incur. Johnson reported Gibson to the Commission on Judicial  Conduct.The complaint is under investigation. And Donnelly, calling Jones's disability "wages," assigned half  of the them to the Wife, leaving her with over a QUARTER  MILLION DOLLARS ANNUAL INCOME and Jones with  $19,200 BEFORE taxes.Jones reported Donnelly to the  Commission on Judicial Conduct.The complaint is under  investigation. Meanwhile, the couple's son wanted to live with his father.His  mother's behavior was reprehensible.We worked on strategy  for a while . . . and she relented.   (See NOTE and FURTHER UPDATE ABOVE in PURPLE.) Lots of delightful happenings arranged by Jones this summer  for his son. The son is now living with Jones and began school  (an excellent one) around the corner. He made friends  immediately, had play dates, and the little girls in his class gave  him their phone numbers!  The morning of the first night Mom was to have the son, she  called Jones and said she wanted him to take the son. Apparently she had a date that night which was more  important.Jones did not ask for a modification of child  support, believing that Mom would nix the plan, since she really  wants the money more thn she wants the son.  Jones said, "Hey, the child support is ransom.It's actually  costing me more because I'm naturally buying him food and  supplies and so on.But my son is worth it!!I'm not going to  let money stand in my way of getting his mother to go along  with our plan." Case 3 -- The Doe Case:This is partially resolved and partially  unresolved.  Premature for Barb to say anything on this website  at this time. After the trial but before the divorce became final,  the mother gave birth to her boyfriend's child and bought a new  home.   She then married prior to the divorce becoming final. We still would love to see Judge Roberts removed from the  bench.  She acted criminally, by using her office to aid and abet  the conversion of thousands upon thousands of Doe's dollars in  an escrow account by Attorney Gerald L. Nissenbaum, E.  Chouteau Merrill (who became a judge in the middle of all  this), and Doe's wife.  It has been problematic in getting authorities to move against  her for criminal conduct.We shall not stop.

 

EXHIBIT I Barbara C. Johnson Attorney at Law 6 Appletree Lane Andover, MA 01810-4102 PHONE 978-474-0833FAX 978-474-1833 email: barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net website: http://falseallegations.com 20 June 2003 Susan Strauss Weisberg Assistant Bar Counsel  Office of the Bar Counsel 75 Federal Street  Boston, MA 0211 Re:BBO File No. B2-03-0012 (Bar Counsel) Dear Attorney Weisberg:  I would have preferred receiving Judge Allen J. Jarasitis’ letter, pursuant to Section 2.2 of the Board of Bar Overseers Rules, to you as well as one merely from you.   Section 2.2 requires that the complainant (the judge allegedly in this case) sign his grievance and that the grievance contain a brief statement of the facts upon which the grievance is based. Does such a letter from Jarasitis exist?  Or is there only one from you to him as part of a fishing expedition?   (Your trip to Bristol County on the Linnehan case is at the bottom of my suspicion.)  Notwithstanding the possibility that this complaint, B2-03-0012, is inspired by you rather than by Judge Jarasitis, I am treating -- for the purpose of this response only -- your letter as if it were written by the judge, and have both scanned it and reproduced it here in 9-point sans serif type.  My own remarks in response to yours, I have put in 11-point type. OFFICE OF THE BAR COUNSEL BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 75 Federal Street Boston. Massachusetts 02110 (617) 728-8750 Fax: (617) 357-1866 www.mass.gov/obcbbo DANIEL C. CRANE BAR COUNSEL        June 13, 2003 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL Barbara C. Johnson, Esq. 6 Appletree Lan Andover, MA 01840-4102 RE:BBO File No. B2-03-0012 (Bar Counsel)                Dear Ms. Johnson: Please be advised that bar counsel has initiated the above-captioned    grievance based on a report received from the Honorable Alien J. Jarasitis, Associate Justice of the Lawrence District Court, that raises questions of professional misconduct on your part in violation of Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:07, the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct.                              It is the responsibility of the Office of the Bar Counsel to            investigate all  matters involving alleged misconduct by an attorney.  Important to state here is that the Office of the Bar Counsel is not required to communicate certain grievances, such as facially frivolous ones, to the attorney complained-of by a petitioner.And the Office both routinely ignores those complaints it deems frivolous or spurious and routinely chooses to selectively enforce its rules. While no disposition will be recommended or undertaken by bar counsel until the attorney has been afforded an opportunity to respond, failure to respond without good cause may constitute misconduct warranting appropriate discipline or administrative suspension under Supreme Judicial Court Rule 4:01, § 3. The conduct in question arose out of your representation of Augustine Banks as a defendant on criminal charges in the Lawrence District Court. We understand that you were never appointed or assigned by CPCS or the Bar Advocate Program to represent Mr. Banks as an indigent defendant. It is correct that I was “never appointed or assigned by CPCS or the Bar Advocate Program to represent Mr. Banks as an indigent defendant.”   I have never asserted that I was.   I signed onto the case after receiving a letter from Augustine Banks, who was then unlawfully imprisoned in Middleton House of Correction.   I do not recall, but I believe he phoned me collect shortly after I received his letter.   I might have phoned the superintendent’s office and got through to Banks that way.  I do not have a timeslip to refresh my memory how that went down, for given that I would be defending him on a pro bono basis were I to take the case, I would not need timeslips.    At some point, I can check my phonebills and see the dates when he called collect (the only way a prisoner can phone out of the facility). Judge Jarasitis has informed us, however, that on or about December 3, 2002, you presented certain documents to the clerk's office including an alleged motion for "costs of trial counsel" (fees) in the amount of $15,000, which you stated had been allowed on September 24, 2002.  This, too, is correct.My statement was made in a letter  addressed to the generic “Sir/Madame.”I wrote: On 24 September 2002, the court allowed my motion for fees of $15,000 for the representation of Augustine Banks in the three above-referenced criminal actions. Please find attached hereto this letter a copy of the endorsed motion. I would like payment. Thank you, After the judge allowed my two motions (one for fees, the other for subpoena costs), I did not know to whom I should present my bill.Someone – I do not remember who – in the clerk’s office said to present them to the judge in his lobby.I went to the lobby and handed the letter and my bill to the receptionist/secretary there. We are informed that when those documents were brought to Judge Jarasitis's attention, he instructed his staff to copy your submissions and return the originals to you.  The documents might have been returned to me.I do not have a memory specifically of that fact.I would have to check my file to determine whether that fact is true.The only problem is that my file copy and a so-called original would be identical except for my signature.I do not always sign my file copies, but when I do, I write an “original” signature.If I did sign my file copy of my cover letter and if the judge’s staffer did return to me the document I presented, I would not be able to tell the difference between the two documents . . . because you never sent me a copy of the copy the staffer allegedly made.I would therefore have nothing by which to compare and identify them. When I print out a document, I print the number of copies I need, so all my copies are originals.I do not have a real photocopier.I have a FAX-copier, which darkens originals and wastes expensive toner, so I rely on it only to copy items sent me by other folks. According to Judge Jarasitis, he has no memory or record of ever allowing a motion of this kind, but he did allow and endorse, in duplicate, a motion for costs of subpoenas on September 24, 2002. The judge’s memory that he endorsed duplicate motions is faulty in extremis.   He signed two separate and different motions on 24 September 2002.\[1]/   That what I say is true is demonstrated and proven by Figures 1 and 2 on the following pages.   The two motions are absolutely not duplicates of one another. Judge Jarasitis’ reason for creating this outrageous falsity arose on 15 November 2002, when, after he unscrupulously threw justice into the garbage can, I scolded him, albeit respectfully, for essentially being a Judas to Justice.   Retaliation became the uerior motive for his future agenda.

 

FIGURE 1.The Motion for Costs of Subpoenas

7        Note that the date SEP 24 2002 begins  on the line beginning “DATE” and descends diagonally to the line and almost reaches the line below      8         Note that the judges signature stamp  does not touch the first three letters  “ATT” of the word “ATTEST” and that  the letters “tis” of the judge’s surname are beyond the right margin of the bottom line of the stamp

1        Note the distance of the docket numbers from the words “Docket No.” 2        Note (a) that the “A” in          “Augustine is a capital          printed “A” and (b) that         the entire word         “Alexander” is crossed         out 3        Note (a) that the “A” in “Augustine is a capital printed “A” and (b) that the “r” in “Alexander” is not crossed out 4        Note (a) that the “A” in “Augustine is a capital printed “A” and (b) that the “A” and the “DER”  in “ALEXANDER” are not crossed out  5       In the signature, note         the “hook” at the        bottom of the capital        “B,”   the heights of        the letters, how only        the “B” and the “J”        touch the line        beneath the signature   6      Note that the circle        around the word       “ALLOWED” goes        through the “N” of        "MOTION” and that all        but the “D” in “DENIED”        is stricken by a dark line

FIGURE 2.  The Motion for Costs of Trial Counsel

6         Note that the circle around the word “ALLOWED” does not go through the “N” of  “MOTION” and all the letters  in “DENIED” are stricken out   7        Note that the date SEP 24 2002 remains totally above the line beginning “DATE” 8        Note that the judges signature stamp begins at the “A” of  “ATTEST” and that only the final “s” of the judge’s surname is beyond the right margin of the bottom line of the stamp   9 and 10 are, of course, not on the other motion.

1        Note that the distance of the docket  numbers from the words “Docket No.”  is much  closer than in Figure 1 2        Note (a) that in “Augustine,” the first letter is written in “cursive”--“a”--and is not a capital printed “A” and (b) that only “lexander” is crossed out with more strokes than in the other motion 3        Note (a) that in “Augustine,” the first letter is written in “cursive” --  “a” -- and is not a capital printed “A” and (b) that there is only one stroke crossing out “Alexande” 4        Note (a) that in “Augustine,” the first letter is written in “cursive” --“a”--  and (b) that only the “A”  in “ALEXANDER” is not crossed out 5      In the signature, note that the capital “B” is much longer than in the other motion – almost 6 lines deep versus 4 lines deep -- and that almost all the let-ters of the signature touch the underline

 

Background:  Banks, a soft-spoken, intelligent, educated man from Nigeria, had been held imprisoned since the end of March 2002 on high bail.  His wife had alleged three times that he violated a restraining order.  He had not been convicted, yet he had been held in jail longer than he would have been even if he had been convicted. One Friday in November 2001, Banks had come home to find his wife with her lover, and was assaulted by her.  (She is a tall plus-sized woman and Banks is a featherweight of medium height.).  On Monday there was a 209A hearing.  While in court to answer his, she sought a 209A order.  His was dismissed.  Hers was continued.  The first alleged violation arose that same day.  Banks was arrested while waiting at a neighbor’s apartment for the police to accompany him the next day to get his belongings from the couple’s apartment. His wife was not even in the apartment.  She testified that she had left a few days earlier with her lover and then stayed at a friend’s residence, but she, nevertheless, called the police and said he had violated the order by being in his friend’s residence in a building next door to the building in which the marital apartment was. The second violation allegedly occurred by his alleged speaking to her in the courthouse after they exited the Lawrence court- room in which there had been a proceeding related to their divorce.\[2]/  This case has yet to be tried. The third alleged violation is said to have occurred on 28 March 2002.  Banks was asleep in his landlord’s house when the police arrived to arrest him.  On the previous day, the 27th, Banks had filed a motion to intervene in a case DSS had against the wife.DSS was about to take custody of his son.  Banks wanted the custody of his son.  Her calling the police on a bogus 209A was to thwart his getting custody of the boy.  She claimed he was stalking her.  He claims he was at work.  This case, too, has yet to be tried.  (The trial judge – the one who is believed to have some integrity – has informed the ADA that even if Banks is found guilty on the two other charges, the court will not impose a jail sentence, given the amount of time Banks had already been imprisoned before trial. He released Banks on personal recognizance.  Banks is now both working and back in school.) On 8 August 2002, I represented Banks at a probable cause hearing.  By then the wife’s lover had disappeared – we believe he was in jail in New Jersey – and she, allegedly with no ability to pay the rent for the huge marital apartment,\[3]/ had taken refuge in a women’s shelter. In November 2002, in the eighth month of Banks’ imprison- ment, his wife, whom he had neither seen nor communicated with, brought still another complaint for a restraining order.  Under the statute, Banks was entitled to proper service, notice, and an opportunity both to present his defense and to cross- examine his accuser within 10 days of the initial issuance of the temporary restraining order. Service appears to have been effected in jail.  When I appeared for the scheduled hearing, I learned that the sheriff’s men had dropped the ball: they had not transported Banks to court for the hearing.And even more egregiously, Judge Jarasitis had already, notwithstanding the sheriff’s men’s goof, issued the fourth restraining order against Banks.  Of course, his wife had had no new allegations to support the new order.  And Jarasitis had to know that . . . her affidavit being so incredibly facially deficient. So on that day, 15 November 2002, I insisted on being heard during the session and orally moved the judge to vacate the new order and schedule another hearing and force the sheriff’s men to deliver Banks into court.  After all, it was not as if Banks could have gotten to court on his own volition.  He was being held in false imprisonment and was therefore not free to get to court on his own.  The judge became angry at my persistence and simply damned Justice when he refused to vacate the order and reschedule the hearing.  He told me, in essence, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”  But, unlike Scarlett O’Hara, who had earned the scorn of Rhett (Clark Gable), in Gone with the Wind, Banks had done nothing to provoke Judge Jarasitis into damning him and his civil rights.  Judge Jarasitis had simply forsaken justice and violated, at the very least, Canons 2(A) and 3(A)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as his oath of office. I was well aware that my confronting the judge about his lapse of good judgment and judicial responsibility put the receipt of payment of my bill in jeopardy.  Such a consideration or possibility, however, does not impede my working toward achieving court reform and attitude adjustment of those sitting on the bench.   Examples abound proving that those who wimp out when facing unscrupulous or irresponsible jurists fare no better than I.  So I persist in upholding my principles and demand for accountability, as provided to the people in Article V of the Declaration of Rights of our Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  I do not countenance injustice, for "[I]njustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Martin Luther King, Jr. We are further informed that Judge Jarasitis scheduled the matter for a hearing at which you appeared on December 17, 2002. During the course of the hearing, Judge Jarasitis raised the issue of whether one of the motions he had endorsed as allowed on September 24 had subsequently been altered and then presented to the clerk's office.  We understand that you denied this allegation at the hearing. I believe I did appear for a hearing on December 17th.  My calendar shows that you and I and others were to be in New Bedford on your motion at 9 in the morning on the 17th and that Banks and I were to be in Lawrence at 2:00 that same day.  I have, however, no independent memory of what happened or what was said at the December 17th hearing.  In any event, my lack of memory is irrelevant.\[4]/   Had the accusation that I altered an endorsed motion been made, I certainly would, indeed, have denied it.  Such an accusation is 100 percent untrue.  There was and is no basis for such an allegation.  It is a false allegation.   See Figures 1 and 2, supra. There are also questions about whether you properly disclosed the contents of the motions that you presented and argued at the September 24, 2002 hearing and, regardless of the timing, why you sought payment of counsel fees at all in the circumstances of the case. I am totally confused by the first part of your sentence, that is, between the words “There” and “hearing.”  Please rewrite it.  I thank you in advance.  I shall properly respond as soon as I understand what it is you are trying to say. As to why I sought payment of counsel fees is an easy statement upon which to comment.  When I heard from Banks, I thought he was being held on one charge of violating a 209A order.  It turned out that he was being held on three separate charges.   They were clearly spurious, given the police reports and the evidence, or lack thereof.   Banks had been given a probable cause hearing on 8 August 2002, before Judge Stephen Ostrach.  At that hearing Banks’ wife admitted that he had never “touched” her.  Her complaint was that he allegedly believed in Voodoo and that his belief in Voodoo caused her to have bruises.  She also testified that her sister(s) in Michigan also suffered bruises on their body.  In response to my question as to how she concluded that her sister(s)’ bruises were the fault of Banks, she replied that her sister(s) dated friends of Banks in Michigan. The gender discrimination in the court was obvious.It might also have been heightened because Banks is Black.  The only reason, speculatively speaking, Judge Ostrach kept Banks in jail after that hearing was because the wife said, for all intents and purposes, that she would not be able to stay in the women’s shelter were he let out of jail.  If that was not the reason, then I can conclude that Judge Ostrach also believes in the power of Voodoo. On another occasion, Judge Stella almost let Banks out of jail, but at the last moment, the judge succumbed to the assistant district attorney’s baseless argument . . . even after the ADA admitted that he had misrepresented a material fact to the court! So given the outrageous actions of the judiciary in that court, the cases were going to take much longer than they reasonably should have.  The court was irresponsibly and unjustly increasing the cost of my efforts, i.e., the time I would have to spend getting Banks free of his false imprisonment. Judge Jarasitis also had a habit of talking to the audience in his session about the inadequate amount of money being given to the judiciary for the administration of the courts.  When he refused to release Banks, I told him I did not want to hear him complain again about the shortage of money for the courts, given that he had just wasted still another $3000 a month to keep Banks in jail.  He corrected me and said it cost $3600 a month to keep Banks in jail. As I told Judge Roberts during a recent trial in the Probate & Family Court, I love the law, I respect the bench, but I do not respect all those who have been appointed to sit on it.  Clearly Judge Jarasitis was one who still had to earn the respect he sought and expected. Enclosed for your reference are copies of the following materials obtained from the Court: 1. the three dockets for the charges against                           Augustine Banks; 2. the endorsed motion for subpoena costs as                           appearing in the Court files; 3 :the materials you submitted to the Court on                           December 3, 2002. Attorney Weisberg, you included the docket sheets for three actions, two endorsed motions, one with an attached bill for services.  I also submitted a cover letter, which you did not include in your package to me.  Both motions had been filed in court and I assume did find their way into one or more of the court files.  I do recall, however, going into the clerk’s office and trying to get a certified copy of the endorsed motion for fees.  The clerk waiting on me refused to let me thumb through the files.  He told me that the motion was not in the files.  Whether that was true, I do not know.  What I do know is that I was not able to get a certified copy of it. We also have copies of the Court tapes recording the hearings on September 24 and December 17, 2002, which you are free to review at this office. I understand that you may have already obtained your own copies of those tapes. I know that various tapes were ordered by Banks and by me.  I do not know at this moment the dates and do not have the time to go through the file at this moment.  See note 2, supra.   I have findings of fact to write for another case and not much time to write them.  They are due soon, and soon is running out.  Answering your complaint is a terrible waste of a precious two days.  I cannot take the time to look through what has become a sizeable file. In any event, I do not put stock in any tape from a court these days.  If you will read Drano Series #95 on my website, you will see that I uncovered an incident of tape-altering by court officials.  I would not now bother to order a copy of tapes from Lawrence given the animosity currently existing.  I would have to have them forensically analyzed before I would trust that they were accurate representations of what occurred in the Lawrence District Court courtrooms.  Of the four judges I have appeared before in that court, I believe that only one of them has some integrity.  The Banks case was a great eye-opener. We urge you to review Supreme Judicial Court Rules 3:07 and 4:01 and to examine the enclosed documentation. Under Section 2.6(2) of the Rules of the Board of Bar Overseers, your  response, plus any supporting documentation, must be received by this office within 20 days,from the date of this notice. Please provide with your response the originals (including any "original copies") of all the materials you submitted to the Lawrence District Court and had returned to you on or about December 3, 2002, including without limitation originals of the documents of which copies are enclosed with this letter. I shall be filing a motion for an extension of time to supply supporting documents, for I must first determine which documents are necessary.  I am confident that Bar Counsel will not be prejudiced by my request for an extension. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, Susan Strauss Weisberg Assistant Bar Counsel     SSW/id     Enclosures     cc:Thomas J. Lynch, Esq. Sincerely, _________________________ Barbara C. Johnson  cc:Thomas J. Lynch, Esq. Viewers of my website [1]There were friends of both Banks and mine who were present in court with us on September 24th.  I had anticipated judicial resistance to my fees’ motion, and we were all stunned when Jarasitis allowed it without any argument whatsoever after he read it. [2]I had requested the security tapes.  In responding, the ADA claimed that the security tapes are not held longer than 24 hours, which means that if one does not discover a theft within 24 hours, the thief might not be caught, even though he might have been taped doing the dastardly deed.  Think, we the taxpayers are going to have to pay for the salary, benefits, and pension of the dolt who thought up the idea of keeping the tape for only 24 hours! [3]Mrs. Banks had four out-of-wedlock children by four different men.  The oldest was in her majority and had a child of her own.  The next two oldest had left the home.  The fourth was with her, as was her fifth child, the child she had with Banks.  She was angry on the 8th that he had married her.In actuality, Mrs. Banks was both collecting child support from each of the fathers and receiving disability payments.Her alleged income was approximately $5000 a month.  (Not having been involved in the divorce case, I have not seen the paperwork.  I have learned, however, that this past February (2003), Judge Manzi relieved Banks of all past, present, and future obligations of child support.)  Banks, of course, has no knowledge of where his son is.  The court refuses to reveal Mrs. Banks’ address. [4]Banks has tapes of several hearings.  They might include the proceeding on December 17th, but not wanting to break the seals, I have neither listened to his tapes nor read transcripts of them.  And because the seals cover the dates of the hearings on the tapes, I cannot be sure which hearing-tapes have been received.

 

EXHIBIT J

 

EXHIBIT K