#161, Drano Serie

 

Barb's Combined Motion: (1) Motion to Proceed Only on Those Parts of the Original Record Before the Single Justice Which Are Johnson’s Pleadings and (2) Motion to Strike the Documents       Which Johnson Has Not Seen       or  of Which Johnson Has Not       Been Given Copies or Which       Have Not Been Properly       Authenticated (filed in the Clerk's Office for the Full Panel of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTE that Drano ##159, 160, and 161 were sent to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth, where the full panel (minus the judge who sat in the single-justice) will hear the case. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTE that Drano ##162, 163, and 164 were sent to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, where every month a different SJC justice is assigned to sit as a  judge  in the single-justice session. Amongst the many types of cases heard by a "Single Justice" are petitions invoking the "SUPERINTENDENCY" of the SJC and Board Discipline cases. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ People have written me, "What can I do to help you?" It is unlikely anything will help the inevitable, however, anything is worth trying.  The "anything" might be letters to the Court: Supreme Judicial Court  John Adams Courthouse  One Pemberton Square Boston , MA 02108   <>Supreme Judicial Court Justices  (click on names and see photos and profiles) Send letters by snail mail or email of both. Snail mail address above. Email addresses below. Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall chiefjustice.marshall@sjc.state.ma.us margaret.marshall@sjc.state.ma.us Justice John M. Greaney john.greaney@sjc.state.ma.us Justice Roderick L. Ireland roderick.ireland@sjc.state.ma.us Justice Francis X. Spina francis.spina@sjc.state.ma.us Justice Judith A. Cowin judith.cowin@sjc.state.ma.us Justice Martha B. Sosman martha.sosman@sjc.state.ma.us Justice Robert J. Cordy robert.cordy@sjc.state.ma.us   Keep the letters going to the Court. I was there on October 6th to file my appeal.   One of the clerks said the letter file was a few inches thick. Whether the judges will ever read them is unknown, but they are sure to know that they are there.  I'll inquire as to whether a "reader" has been assigned.  Let's also try emails.  The judges' secretaries will certainly let them know how many are coming in.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT for the Commonwealth Docket No. SJC-09820 IN RE BARBARA C. JOHNSON ~~~~~~~~~~~ JOHNSON’S COMBINED MOTION: (1)    MOTION TO PROCEED ONLY ON THOSE PARTS OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD BEFORE THE SINGLE JUSTICE  WHICH ARE JOHNSON’S PLEADINGS AND (2)    MOTION TO STRIKE THE DOCUMENTS WHICH          JOHNSON  HAS NOT  SEEN OR OF WHICH JOHNSON          HAS NOT  BEEN GIVEN COPIES OR WHICH HAVE NOT          BEEN PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED Now comes Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., [“Johnson”] and moves to proceed only on those  parts of the original record before the single justice which are  Johnson’s pleadings that were filed at the BBO or in an Article III court.  Specifically excluded from Johnson’s request are Johnson’s Drano Series.\[1]/ Johnson further moves to strike the remaining parts of the Office of Bar Counsel’s record appendix, to wit, to strike the documents which Johnson has not seen, or of which Johnson has not been given copies, or which have not been properly authenticated. As grounds, Johnson states that the time, effort, and cost it would take to reproduce 12 volumes of the record in addition to the time, effort, and cost of producing the volume she has filed with this appeal is prohibitive.  .  Johnson further states it is impossible for her to reproduce the 12 volumes because ·        she has not  seen all the documents ·        she was not given copies of all the documents in the volumes ·        the OBC has not provided an accurate table of contents for the record appendix, making it impossible to know which documents have been and have not been included in the 12-volume set [many examples are given below] ·        none of the exhibits has been properly authenticated ·        many were allegedly authenticated by people on the staff of Susan Strauss Weisberg, opposing OBC Assistant Bar counsel ·        Johnson never had the opportunity to cross-examine Weisberg’s staff on their frequently revised affidavits, the last revision of which occurring two weeks after the sham trial had ended For instance, prior to the scheduled trial date, Weisberg had not only not shared with Johnson copies of the documents she received from the Bristol County Probate & Family and the New Bedford Juvenile courts, Weisberg never—to this day—gave Johnson a list of them.     Further, Weisberg has not declared whether all the documents she received from the Bristol County family court and the New Bedford juvenile court are included in the 12-volume set. Moreover, Weisberg has not correctly identified the documents she purports to have included in the OBC’s 12-volume record appendix.  For example, according to the exhibit list Weisberg  provided to Johnson two weeks after the sham trial, Trial Exhibit 41 was “Drano #84a: the Deb Sano//BBO Saga.”   There has never been a Drano #84a file.   Johnson had been threatened with still more so-called discipline if she uploaded it, so Johnson wrote in her Drano Table on her Home Page [Trial Exhs. 10 and 11]:\[2]/ 84a The Bar War: to come.  Banned in Boston by the Board of Bar Overseers, commandered by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Barb's fight against Bar Counsel and the Sanos And at the so-called trial after the public had been ordered out and Johnson had left, Weisberg told the hearing officer, I had organized these so all the web pages were in the same section, and I now offer as the next exhibit Drano 84a which is the respondent's uploading in reply to the grievance of the complainant in the second count. Transcript, 12/2/03, pp. 112.   Weisberg outright lied.  What did Weisberg fabricate and call Trial Exhibit 84a?   Whatever it was, it was marked and admitted into evidence as Trial Exhibit 41 and is allegedly included in Impounded Volume IX. There appear to be infinite irregularities.   None can be explained succinctly, for Weisberg did not provide a straightforward Table of Contents.  To determine which documents have been included in the 12-volume set, one has to look at three documents:  her Trial Exhibit list, the BBO docket sheet, as well as the one-page Table of Contents, on which the Exhibits and the paper numbers are called out as “Tab” numbers.   Notwithstanding the difficulty of figuring out what Weisberg has included in the 12 volumes, Johnson, via the following excerpts from the BBO docket sheet, points to other striking examples of either the absence of information where there should be information or faulty information where it should not be faulty.   For instance, Tab 226 “06/13/05 R’s Appeal-stricken and returned to R – see order of 6/21/05.”   That date is 1½ years after the sham trial.  Johnson had no knowledge of any order in 2005. Tab 227: “06/15/05  Letter from Bar Counsel re: protective order” Clearly this was an unlawful ex parte communication by letter between Bar Counsel Daniel Crane or Weisberg and the BBO. Nowhere does it show on the docket that a substitute Appeal was filed by Johnson.  Therefore, Johnson asks, Under which TAB is her appeal?  Is it included in the 12 volumes? Tab 236 “08/18/05 R’s Motion for Leave to File Reply”   Johnson filed her Reply simultaneously with her motion, but the docket sheet fails to show that a Reply was filed, that is, the docket does not reflect that the Reply was received. Tab 240: “08/19/05  R’s Motion for Leave to File Reply Allowed by Board Chair” The docket sheet still fails to show that the Reply itself was received and filed. Therefore, Johnson asks, Under which TAB is her Reply?  Is it included in the 12 volumes?  These failures are the reason Johnson had to prepare a volume to accompany her brief, for there is nothing in the docket sheet to show that any of the pleadings in her volume were included in the OBC/BBO’s Record Appendix.  They, of course, should have been.              “Chalk B” provides the next challenge.  Johnson has never seen Chalk B [Impounded Volume XII].   As will be shown, there are several renditions of the document.  In the December 2d transcript, it is purported to be “Drano Sources Internet Posting thru 5-1-01.”  It was discussed on pages 106-107 of the first day of “trial” after the public and Johnson had left.\[3]/     MS. WEISBERG:   Next, just for a little interruption, if you don't mind, I'm offering as a chalk a chart that I had prepared and disclosed to Miss Johnson, although I made a few changes.  I made a change in the title, and I added an entry, and gave her a copy this morning.\[4]/  This chalk is called Drano Sources Internet Postings through May 1, 2001.  If I could have just a moment to explain it.     HEARING OFFICER:  Okay.     MS. WEISBERG:  What I did in order to demonstrate that the source of the information on the Internet postings I have just offered derived at least a part from confidential or impounded documents, I have listed by each Drano number what the text is that I say was derived from a confidential document or an impounded document, then listed the source record and what court it is in.  What I would like to do when the case concludes is submit to you a second version of this chalk with the exhibit numbers collated.  But it is intended to give you a road map into what bar counsel says the source of this information is.  That is the source from the impounded records only.  There's plenty of other information on that web site that's not impounded, but is still personal or confidential.      HEARING OFFICER:  Are you asking this chalk to be admitted as an exhibit?    MS. WEISBERG:  As a chalk. Transcript, 12/2/03, pp. 106-107 (emphasis supplied).   Weisberg herself was the source of the “sources” declared on Chalk B.  Because she had no evidence whatsoever from where Johnson derived the information in her pleadings, Weisberg arbitrarily chose a fact from one of Johnson’s pleadings and then looked for a similar fact in one of the Bristol family or New Bedford court documents and arbitrarily concluded that the document she was looking at was the source of Johnson’s information.  Wrong! The following excerpt, from pages 19 and 20 from the second day of the sham trial, confirms this retrofitting.  It also confirms that the version of Chalk B in Vol. XII is not a document that Johnson has seen.   It had been created after Johnson had left the trial with the public in the middle of her Opening Statement on Day I.     MS. WEISBERG:  Second, I had asked for leave, and I will reiterate that, to submit to you a substituted and final version of Chalk B which is the chart of Drano sources, that is comparing Internet references on the web site to the impounded documents. I would like to add exhibit number references to each entry.  So that if you read down the chalk where it says Drano 5 and shows Internet text, I can put in what the exhibit number is for you.  Then, where it says source record, Salt Deposition Page 15, I can put in what exhibit that is referring to.   HEARING OFFICER:  Based on your representation, that will be acceptable.       MS. WEISBERG:  If I may do that perhaps by Monday also.      HEARING OFFICER:  That will be acceptable. Transcript, Day II, 12/03/03, pp. 19-20.               As written on page 1, supra, still another problem arises from the authentication by Weisberg’s staff of documents they could not authenticate.   First, we had asked and discussed and I had asked for leave to submit at the conclusion of the evidence substituted affidavits by Mr. Brown and Mrs. Rinone authenticating the exhibits that were authenticated by their prior affidavits, but with direct reference to the actual exhibit numbers of the documents as admitted.  I would ask if and when this record closes that you leave it open for that specific purpose for a reasonable period of time which, perhaps, we could discuss at the end.    . . .   MS. WEISBERG:  No.  It would be just a matter of getting people in the office to draft and sign.  I may have it done by Friday, but Monday will be fine.   HEARING OFFICER:  That will be so admitted based on your representation. Transcript, Day II, 12/03/03, pp. 18-19.             And at the end of the second day of the sham trial, Chalk B and the allegedly authenticating affidavits were all further revised.   HEARING OFFICER:  Would you like December 16th for all of these housekeeping items?  All of these housekeeping items will be for December 16th.    MS. WEISBERG:  That will be easier for me.    MS. WEISBERG:  December 16 for the revised substituted affidavits, the substituted Chalk B, and final exhibit list with the authentication noted. Transcript, Day II, 12/03/03, pp. 21-22.                Lastly, as noted in note 1, supra, it is not known whether the documents in the appendix from Johnson’s website have been modified, nor whether the affidavits are true. Conclusion             In sum, where the problems with the 12 volumes are truly countless, the volumes cannot be deemed to have presented an accurate record before the single justice.  They will do no more here than muddy the waters and be unconstitutionally prejudicial to Johnson.  At the very least, Weisberg and/or the BBO should have granted Johnson’s request for a copy of the 12-volume set.               Upon inquiry by phone call to the SJC’s clerk’s office from Johnson as to whether Weisberg had certified service of the 12-volume set, she learned that a motion to produce the set would be futile: she was told to come in to the court and look at them at the counter.  Apparently lawyer respondents are treated in a discriminatory fashion: they do not receive a copy of appendices as all other appellants do.  That this deprivation appears to be a custom and policy is not only unconstitutional, it is sinful.  That this Court, the highest in the Commonwealth, countenances the filing of  ex parte appendices by the Bar Counsel and/or the BBO is horrifying.            Given the extensive, very apparent discrepancies in the 12 volumes, it was impossible for Johnson to stand at the Clerk’s office counter and check the volumes.  The appendix of any lawyer other than an OBC or BBO lawyer would not have been accepted for filing on the grounds of being noncomplying under Mass.R.A.P. 18 and 20, if not also under other rules.  By allowing the ex parte filing of the OBC’s 12-volume appendix, Johnson was deprived of her constitutional right to equal protection and was intentionally prejudiced. Not only did Johnson deserve more respect than that which she received, she was also entitled to expect the equal protection of the laws as well as the fundamental fairness that is the cornerstone of due process.            WHEREFORE, Johnson prays that this motion to strike the OBC/BBO’s 12-volume set purporting to be an accurate record of the proceedings at the BBO be allowed by this judicial body, or in the alternative, strike the documents which Johnson has not seen, or of which Johnson has not been given copies, or which have not been properly authenticated. Respectfully submitted, Barbara C. Johnson 2 October 2006                       Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se 6 Appletree Lane Andover, MA 01810-4102 978-474-0833 BBO #549972 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barbara C. Johnson, hereby certify that on 6 October2006 I served a true and accurate copy of the within pleading to the opposing OBC counsel, 99 High Street, Boston, MA 02110 by first-class mail. Barbara C. Johnson 6 October 2006                          Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se

   

A word about the Google ads being added to this site Over the years, I have received hundreds of phonecalls and emails for recommendations of and referrals to family-law and civil rights attorneys and self-help groups across this nation, 3500 miles wide and 1500 deep plus Hawaii and Alaska.   Clearly, it is impossible for me to be responsive to these requests.    Sooooo . . . not only can the few dollars from the ads pay for the expenses of this website, you, too, can also benefit: you can learn on your own which attorneys and which self-help groups in those areas of the law are available to help you.   Hoping that the ads will give you sufficient information to satisfy your  requests for recommendations and referrals, I have been reformatting the files on this website to accommodate the maximum number of ads that Google's policy allows per file. By the way, I have no control over which ads appear.  They are chosen by Google according to the content -- I think -- in each file. HELP:  Any  HTML programmer know how to get rid of the extra <> below the Google ads at the top of the  files and the <> in the upper right-hand corners of the Google ads on the right-hand side of the screen?  i've wasted hours, if not days, trying to figure out WHY they are there in some files and not in others . . . and how to get rid of them.  THANKS!!

Enter your search terms Submit search form Web www.falseallegations.com www.barbforgovernor.com www.generationaldynamics.com

Drano Series	HomePage (Click)	Feedback (Click)	The Store (Click)
#1,   Meuse #5,   Linnehan & Brown  #9,   Linnehan & Brown #13, Meuse #17, Linnehan & Brown #21, Linnehan & Brown #25, Sylvia v. Sylvia #29, Linnehan & Brown #33, Trimboli #37, Linnehan Related #41, Smith/Pocahontas #45, Smith/Pocahontas #49, Smith/Pocahontas #53, Smith/Pocahontas #57, Smith & Judges #61, Smith/Pocahontas #65, Linn. Dom. Rel. #69, Linnehan & Brown #73, 1st Cir. B&L Decis. #77, LyndaPaul-Child-sup #81, 1st Amendment/Bar #84a, Sano case/Banned in Mass. #88, Money from estate #90, Count 2: Answer Interwoven #93, Herald in on Bar War #97, Opposition to Nissenbaum #101, Judicial Immunity Roots #105 Barb's letter-Rule 1.15 (am. #109  Barb v. BBO (Federal) #113 Smith'sOpposition to Boston #116 Meuse's §1983 Complaint #120 Petition-Writ of Certiorari-USSCt #124 Meuse-Opp-to-NCMEC Dis #128-Letter-Petition-Rehearing #132 Pretrial-conf-Lafortune #136 Smith o-james-recons-dism #140 Smith o-sj-R 56.1 facts mp1 #144 surreply-to-offs-reply-recon #148 m-dismiss-jdp-ccs-malp-2 #152 contempts-Pocahontas & Smith ------------------------------------------------------- #156 strike-appearance-ag-for-bbo ------------------------------------------------------- #160 m-lv-excess-pp-brief #164 answer-to-contempt-petition #168 m-vacate-stay-and-consolidation #172 appeal-judgment-of-dismissal-app-ct #176  amended-motion-for-acceleration #180 reply-to-crane-weisberg-appellee-brf #184 appendices-to-petition-writ-for-cert	#2,   Meuse #6,   Meuse #10, Meuse #14, Linnehan & Brown #18, GAL in Case #22, Linnehan v. Sylvia #26, Grandparents #30, Meuse #34, Linnehan Related #38, Smith/Pocahontas #42, Linnehan Related #46, Smith/Pocahontas #50, Smith/Pocahontas #54, Smith/Pocahontas #58, Smith/Pocahontas #62, Smith & Judges #66, Linn. Dom. Rel. #70, Linn.Child-support #74, Fraud-5-Lawyers #78, StupidButFamous #82, 1st Amendment/Bar #85, Bogus contempt, coming #89, Petition for Discipline #90, Count 3: Answer Interwoven #94, Restraining Order #98, Hearse at Lawyers Weekly #102, Bar Board:Star Chamber #106 Motions filed at Bar Board #110 Reply Appeal Immunity #114 The Younger Doctrine #117 Fed QuasiJudicial Immunity #121 Opp. to Dismiss by FOX TV #125 F4J London Parade Pics #129 Letter- Editor Lawyers Wkly #133-Barb v, BBO: App Brief #137 Smith-o-dipiano-recons-dism #141 Smith o-sj-Boston-memo mp1 #145 m-partial-recon-cc-wiretap #149 reply-o-dism-jdp-ccs-2d-mal #153 barb-v-bbo-crane-defamation ------------------------------------------------------- #157 strike-appearance-ag-for-BC-ABC ------------------------------------------------------- #161 m-str-docs-obc-record-appendix #165 m-declaration of-practice-of-law #169 o-impound-supp-appendix-record #173 show-cause-brief for hear'g-1st-Cir #177 motions-vacate-reverse-dismiss #181 five-motions-and-oppositions-sjc	#3,   Meuse #7,   Recusing Judge #11, Meuse #15, Linnehan & Brown #19, Linnehan & Brown #23, Robyn Sylvia, Aff. #27, Meuse #31, Linnehan & Brown #35, Smith/Pocahontas #39, Linnehan & Brown #43, Linnehan Related #47, Smith/Pocahontas #51, Smith/Pocahontas #55, Smith/Pocahontas #59, Smith/Pocahontas #63, King HarrySmith #67, Meuse Kidnapping #71, Smith/Judges/A-G #75, LaidbackPocahontas #79, Fraud-StupidButFamous #83, 1st Amendment/Bar #86, Proposed Findings/Bar #90, Answer to Petition Discipline #91, Motion for Attorney Fees #95, Court Commits Crimes #99, Opposition to Attorney Fees #103 Appeal Judicial Immunity #107 Barb v. BBO et al (State) #111 Complaint - Sec 1983 #115 TOC-Proposed Findings #118 Opposition to Motion Strike #122 Barb v. BBO -- immunity #126 Meuse- re- Bivens Claims #130 LaFortune-Opp to Preclude #134 Memorial Butch Bailey  #138 o-city-recons-denial-dismiss #142 Smith surreply-Boston-facts #146 Smithsupp-m-partial-recon-cc #150 Barb-appeal-recommend-BB #154a announcement-of-disbarment #154 opp-recommendation-disbarment #158 m-dismis-by-bbo in Barb v BBO --------------------------------------------------- #162 m-recuse-SJC Justice-spina #166 claims-USDC-Local Rule-83.6(2)(D) #170 m-decl-practice-of-law-full-panel-sjc #174 reply-unauthorized-practice-laws-jc #178 motion-dismiss-disbarment-violation #182 app-for-further-app-review-Rule27-1	#4,  Meuse #8,  Meuse #12, Linnehan & Brown #16, Meuse #20, Linnehan & Brown #24, Sylvia c. Sylvia #28, Deleted #32, Linnehan & Brown #36, Smith/Pocahontas #40, Smith.Pocahontas #44, Linnehan Related #48, Smith/Pocahontas #52, Smith/Pocahontas #56, Judge Contempt #60, King HarrySmith  #64, Linnehan Related #68, GAL Fees #72, Brown & Linnehan #76, Fraud-LaidbackLawyer #80, 1st Amendment/Bar #84, Sano case/Bar #87, Senior citizen,Gordon #90, Count 1: Answer Interwoven #92 Immunity-DMA-Elderly #96, Jarasitis: Judas to Justice #100, Motion for Jury Trial #104 Judicial Accountability Art. #108 Preliminary Injunction #112 Smith'sOpposition to Det. #115a-Proposed Findings-Divorce #119 Barb v. BBO--Prop Findings #123 Meuse-Opp-to-STF-Dism. #127 Meuse- Fake FBI Docs #131 LaFortune-Mot-to-Dismiss #135 Smith's dipiano-mot-dism  #139 mal-pros-garden-variety #143 Smith's o-recon-sj-qual-iy #147 Reply-to-offs-o-partl-recon #151 barb-ussct-petition-writ-cert ---------------------------------------------- #155 petition-for-rehearing-spina #159 app-brief-and-letter-to-clerk #159a app-brief-surprises #163 m-jury trial for contempt #167 combined-correct-docket-order-toc #171 appeal-judgment-of-contempt-sjc #175 nonlawyer-representing-parties #179 reply-apps-disbarm't-contempt #183 -scotus-petition-for-writ-certiorari
#1, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #3, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #5, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #7, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #9, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #11, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #13, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #15, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #17, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #19, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #21, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #23, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #25, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #27, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #29, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #31, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #33, Drano  (Not available in 640 pixels)		#2, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #4, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #6, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #8, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #10, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #12, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #14, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #16, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #18, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #20, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #22, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #24, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #26, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #28 #30, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #32, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #34, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)

Barbara C. Johnson, Attorney at Law 6 Appletree Lane, Andover, Massachusetts 01810-4102 Phone 978-474-0833