| 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.\/\/
(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.\/
\/
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.\/ This is a matter of public concern.\/
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,\/
(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\/-- 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)].\/
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,\/
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\/
·
B2-03-0012, Bar Counsel, allegedly “based
on a report by Justice Allen Jarisitis”\/
·
C2-99-0018, Bar Counsel, based on a reported
decision\/
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\
º
C2-04-0109, Bar Counsel based on reports by
Justices
Sean M. Dunphy, Catherine Sabaitis, and Lisa A.
Roberts\/
and
º
C2-04-0253, Bar Counsel based on report by
Justice
Dorothy M. Gibson\/
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. \/
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. | 
#153, Drano Seriess