#164, Drano Series

Barb's 

Combined Opposition and Answer to Show Cause Why Contempt Should Not Issue

~~~~~~~~~
There are two documents in this file:
One, the cover letter to the Clerk.
The other, Barb's opposition and answer to the petition to show cause why Barb should not be held in civil contempt
~~~~~~~~~
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.

Barbara C. Johnson
Attorney at Law
6 Appletree Lane
Andover, MA 01810-4102
978-474-0833      FAX Available upon request barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net

6 October 2006                                              

George Slyva, Assistant Clerk
Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County
John Adams Courthouse, 1st floor
One Pemberton Square, Suite 1300
Boston, MA 02108-1707

Re:     BD-2006-039

Dear Clerk Slyva:

Please find in this package:

1. JOHNSON’S COMBINED OPPOSITION AND ANSWER

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CONTEMPT SHOULD NOT ISSUE

2. JOHNSON’S MOTION TO RECUSE JUSTICE FRANCIS X. SPINA

FROM THIS BOARD DISCIPLINARY ACTION

3. JOHNSON’S MOTION FOR JURY TRIAL ON PETITION FOR
            CONTEMPT AND A DECLARATION OF WHETHER A
             FINDING OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

IS ACTUALLY BEING SOUGHT BY BAR COUNSEL

Sincerely,
Barbara C. Johnson

cc:    Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss Weisberg
         99 High Street, Boston, MA 02110

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

of Suffolk County 

Single-Justice Session No. BD-2006-039

IN RE BARBARA C. JOHNSON

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JOHNSON’S COMBINED OPPOSITION AND ANSWER

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CONTEMPT SHOULD NOT ISSUE

Now comes Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., [“Johnson”] and answers and opposes the petition for contempt in three parts. Part the First, the Opposition. Part the Second, the Answer. Part the Third: Johnson’s Responses to Weisberg’s WHEREFORE Clauses.

Part the First, the Opposition

As grounds for opposing the judgment, Johnson states that to demand that she withdraw from her state cases before there is a final disposition is not only unfair to Johnson, but, more importantly, horribly prejudicial to her existing clients. If this Court is truly interested in justice, this Court both would not and will not interfere with the cases of her clients by ordering Johnson to disappear prior to finishing the cases. To order Johnson to withdraw immediately has only made the coyotes, pseudonymously “opposing counsel,” circle around the dying carcasses of her clients’ cases, their owners cruelly injured and abandoned by this Court.

Given that this Court knows that Johnson’s clients have a right to be represented by a counsel of their choice and that they have a constitutional right to seek relief or a remedy from the courts for wrongs done them, this Court is intentionally depriving Johnson’s clients of a fundamental right under both the State and Federal constitutions. In such a scenario, this Court’s order to Johnson to withdraw from her existing cases is in excess of even this Court’s authority.

Further, as stated in Johnson’s Motion to Stay, she has not had the requisite time to do all that was ordered. Her appellate brief, being due on October 10th, the day after the holiday, is being filed on October 6th, the same day she is filing the within pleading A brief for federal court is due October 16th (the deadline being graciously extended so that Johnson could meet the obligations ordered by this Court and those demanded by her appeal). The OBC was unwilling to assent to a continuance. And many of the orders were redundant, i.e., they required her to provide information that had already been provided to the OBC or the BBO, e.g. re an IOLTA account, bar memberships in other jurisdictions.

In sum, there is nothing this Court or the Board of Bar Overseers or the Office of Bar Counsel need to know that they do not already know.

There is only one matter of significance: Johnson refuses to provide anything—regardless of the Court’s Judgment of Disbarment— to the Siamese twins, the BBO or the OBC, for she refuses to deal with those entities any longer because of the corruption of their internal practices, policies, customs, and habits and the Assistant Bar Counsel to whom this Board Discipline case was assigned. (Bar Counsel Daniel Crane, the titular plaintiff in this BD case has since resigned.) Johnson’s understanding is that cooperation with the BBO and OBC is voluntary because they are nongovernmental entities. That this Court has with a stroke of the pen suddenly converted that voluntariness into something mandatory is disconcerting. Until Johnson has time to research this issue further, Johnson will stand on her rights to refuse to deal with either the BBO or the OBC. They are corrupt or corrupted entities and she wants nothing to do with them.

Rather than prosecute Johnson for contempt, the people of this Commonwealth—including the lawyers—would benefit by the immediate demolition of the SJC’s affiliated entities.  Given that they have never been enabled by statute and have no by-laws, that demolition could take place with a mere announcement.  If people have a problem with lawyers, let them use Article III courts, as they do when they are unhappy with other professionals in the Commonwealth.  The High Court’s experiment with the OBC/BBO has gone terminally awry. They have earned only the disrespect of attorneys as well as of dissatisfied consumers of legal services.  And the High Court has done a poor job of controlling and supervising those entities.

The intractable divide between Johnson and this Court is her thoughts and conclusions, which Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss-Weisberg so ridiculously, No, absurdly, sought to impound and protect via a motion for a protection order . . . which was allowed!   Welcome to Wonderland not with Alice but with our Orwellian Big Brother.   The full High Court should feel ashamed to allow the OBC and BBO to be so empowered that it can indulge in such deplorable, mortifying conduct, so they could indulge in Schadenfreude, χαρα απο το κακον, επιχαιρεκακία.  Only someone who can maliciously enjoy someone else’s misfortune would seek such an order.

Amongst Johnson’s “impounded thoughts and conclusions” are the need for serious court reform and the need to abolish both the judicial and quasi-judicial immunities. Addressing those needs would restore to today’s very disturbed and disgruntled society accountability, accountability, accountability, something Article V of our Declaration of Rights makes mandatory.

To address those needs, Johnson would like to conference with this High Court in a reasonable and mutually respectful manner and set out what about the courts must be reformed. The courts are not “working” now. The cost of legal services is prohibitive to most of the populace. And Why? Because the courts —primarily the family and the district courts—are operating inefficiently and without any administrative common sense. Due process is absent, having been sacrificed in the name of efficiency. Fundamental fairness is absent, having been sacrificed to the hysteria created by the neo-feminist movement.

Substantively, all the courts, including the lower and the appeals courts, are being led to the River Styx by the annual federal bonuses and grant awards to the Commonwealth\[1]/ and to its judiciary. The lucrative windfall from those annual bonuses and grants has caused a chronic malady in our justice system. It must be cured.

Part the Second, the Answer

1. Admits.

2. Admits.

3. As to ¶¶2(b) and (c) of the Judgment of Disbarment:   Johnson is neither a court-appointed attorney, nor  a  “guardian, executor, administrator, trustee, or other fiduciary,” and has no case in which “wards, heirs, and beneficiaries” are involved.

Because Johnson has published on her website her problems with the Office of Bar Counsel and the Board of Bar Overseers, almost each and every opposing counsel has openly informed the judges hearing the cases of Johnson’s BBO disciplinary predicament. And Johnson has repeatedly and forthrightly admitted for years that there were ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

As to ¶2(d): It was, in fact, from an opposing counsel in open court in a civil case, on August 11th, that Johnson learned of the Judgment of Disbarment. Then opposing counsel gave both Johnson and the court copies of this Court’s Memorandum and Judgment.

As to ¶2(e): Johnson’s clients have had access to everything in their files at all times and have received copies of all pleadings either in hand or by email. Given the technology of scanning and email attachments these days, Johnson’s clients seldom have had to wait for copies by first-class mail. Her clients were very pleased with her legal services and have not complained to the OBC or the BBO about her. They all have been aware of the bar disciplinary matter and are aware of the Judgment of Disbarment.

As to ¶2(f): Johnson has no fees that have been paid in advance and that must be returned.

As to ¶2(g): Johnson has one IOLTA account with her own $15 and change in it to keep it open. If the judgment is not reversed on appeal, Johnson will, indeed, close the IOLTA account, but it seems premature to have to do so before she has had the opportunity to travel the complete appellate route. She has no other “client, trust or other fiduciary account” from which to disburse client and fiduciary funds.

As to notices required by ¶2: All counsel opposing her in federal court are well aware of the single justice’s judgment of disbarment, as is the Chief Judge of the federal court and the other judges sitting on her cases.

4, As to ¶3 and its order to file diverse items with the Office of the Bar Counsel: The OBC is an affiliated entity, not a governmental entity, and has no constitutional or statutory authority over Johnson. Given that the BBO has received every year since she was sworn into the Bar, when Johnson pays her dues, a sworn update of the location, title and account number of her one IOLTA bank account, there is neither an emergency nor a necessity to require Johnson to spend more time on this item at this time. Johnson has wasted much of half a decade cooperating fully with the OBC to no avail. That’s it. No more.

Alternatively, Johnson argues, she has no other client, trust, or other fiduciary account than that IOLTA account which she has previously identified yearly to the BBO.

What is of more concern to Johnson is her constitutional privacy, which was invaded when the OBC clandestinely obtained the records of Johnson’s private checking and savings account. When the OBC first asked Johnson for the information . . . and there was no dispute about the money received or returned . . . , Johnson asked the OBC prosecutor to supply her with legal authority for the request. Rather than being straightforward and responsive to Johnson, the OBC prosecutor secretly subpoenaed Johnson’s personal bank records. Johnson learned of this when the prosecutor sent Johnson a copy of what the OBC received from the bank. Johnson found the surreptitious behavior unconscionable, and swore that she would not tolerate again being victimized by the dishonorable persons with whom she dealt at the OBC or BBO.\[2]/ Johnson requests that this particular notice be vacated in entirety, not only stayed.

Specifically, ¶3(a) does not apply, where Johnson is neither a court-appointed attorney nor a “guardian, executor, administrator, trustee, or other fiduciary,” and has no case in which “wards, heirs, and beneficiaries” are involved.

As to Johnson’s clients, they want nothing to do with the BBO, for it has recommended the interference with their cases by denying them their counsel. In any event, given that the OBC, and perhaps the BBO, has already stalked Johnson electronically through the computerized court records to which it has access, it already has the names and addresses of Johnson’s clients.

As to ¶3(b): This applies to one IOLTA account, and the BBO has had knowledge of that account for almost two decades. As to Johnson’s personal accounts, the OBC through Weisberg has already secretly subpoenaed her bank records.  Some feeling of guilt pushed Weisberg to send copies of Johnson’s bank records to Johnson after Weisberg received them.

As to ¶¶3(c), (d), and (f): These do not apply.

As to ¶3(e): The BBO already has my First Circuit bar number.

Because Johnson has had no practical or reasonable need to send notices, Johnson has retained no copies to retain.

5. As to ¶4: This Court has no jurisdiction in federal courts. Therefore Johnson objects to this order, which she construes as an invasion of her privacy and interference with her ability to make a livelihood. Further, there appears to no reason to supply this Court with Johnson’s federal court bar number. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court has already notified the Clerk’s office of the United States District Court in Boston, and that office has notified the Chief Judge. It might be an issue of first impression, but Johnson contends that this High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and in so doing, is precluded from protection from liability under the umbrella of immunity.

6. Admits.

7. Denies. Johnson sees no forms amongst the exhibits of OBC ABC Weisberg, although Weisberg claims those forms to which she refers are a part of or are Exhibit D. Notwithstanding Wiesberg’s assertion, Johnson has no recall whatsoever in receiving such forms as Weisberg avers exist.

8. Denies that she practiced law and performed legal work in the Commonwealth on Monday, 11 September 2006. Johnson had been ordered months earlier to be in court on September 11th with a pretrial conference memorandum. She followed that order. She had prepared the pretrial conference memorandum prior to September 8th, the day the guillotine was scheduled to fall, and reviewed and dated it before the close of business on that day.

On September 11th, she appeared to produce the memorandum and to help the client get a continuance so that he could find successor counsel. That particular client has never been a pro se party and has a monosyllabic nature. Johnson firmly believes that he would have hesitated to his detriment to speak up and ask the court for a continuance of the necessary length of time. Johnson believed and still believes that her obligation to the client to help him effect the change from one counsel to another with ease far outweighed her obligation to comply strictly with this Court’s order in this particular regard. A generous judge in federal court has characterized that kind of noncompliance as only a venial error, not a fatal one.

What happened was the unexpected. A request for a continuance was unnecessary. Because the defendant was a no-show, Johnson’s client was immediately awarded a default judgment. It is anticipated that Johnson will become a fact witness for the hearing on the assessment of damages as soon as successor counsel files an appearance. No definite date has been decided, given that Johnson does not yet know whether she will be deprived of her liberty and if so, for how long.

How this went down, Johnson need not explain here. Weisberg stalked Johnson, ordered the tape, had it transcribed, and included it amongst the exhibits attached to her petition for contempt. Johnson knows she was stalked because no one but she and her client knew where she would be on September 11th. Weisberg, obviously a member of the American Al Qaeda, had her own plan for terrorism on the fifth anniversary of 9/11: she knew where Johnson would be. Weisberg had either electronically checked the computerized schedules of all the courts throughout the Commonwealth or had intercepted telephonic communications between Johnson and her client. Weisberg had no authority to spy on Johnson in any way.

Given that there is no nonpolitically-connected district attorney in Massachusetts, Johnson will not try to get a criminal complaint against Weisberg. Johnson will, however, make efforts to alert the media to Weisberg’s dirty tactics. With luck, literally, Johnson hopes a special investigation will begin to scrutinize what Johnson believes is only one of many illegal practices and policies of the OBC and the BBO.

9. Denies.

10. Admits. Johnson does, indeed, refuse to provide anything to the OBC or the BBO. Notwithstanding Johnson’s forthright refusal, OBC ABC Weisberg already has all the information she claims to seek and/or learn now. That information Johnson gave to Weisberg or the BBO continuously throughout the years she has been practicing.

11. As to Weisberg’s ¶4: See the paragraph numbered “5,” supra.

12. Johnson has not bothered to read the correspondence she has received recently from the OBC. She has no recall of the letter marked as Exhibit L.

13. Every action Johnson has or has not taken with regard to the order has mitigating circumstances.

14. Admits only that she maintains a website at www.falseallegations.com on the Internet. Johnson strenuously denies the remainder of Weisberg’s paragraph numbered “14” and adds that Weisberg should be disbarred for committing fraud upon this Court for maliciously making the false representations contained in her ¶14.

• Johnson’s Home Page, Weisberg’s Exhibit M, announces the disbarment in neon lights.

• Johnson’s disclaimer and copyright page is Weisberg’s Exhibit N.

• Weisberg’s Exhibit O is in need of slight revision, but there was no intention to deceive or to entice clientele in Massachusetts or in any other State. See the neon lights on Exhibit M. As Johnson declared in her Motion to Stay and in her Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Stay, she had no time to comply with all that was required under the order of August 9th. This Court has no jurisdiction over her website at this time, if ever. At any rate, the Court must look at Johnson’s website in the proper context and from a proper perspective, as if it were a book. Outdated books are still sold in book stores. The only page that is updated from time to time is the Home Page, the “cover,” if you will. The other pages are static, not dynamic. Once prepared and uploaded, they stay that way. Only occasionally has Johnson gone in to reformat a page or correct typos or bad formatting that she has inadvertently spotted.

• There is no Exhibit P amongst Weisberg’s exhibits.

• Exhibits Q and R are merely boilerplate attorney-client fee agreements. Yes, Johnson’s name is in them but on another page they are described as boilerplates, of which the purpose is to merely show visitors to the site what they should look for in an attorney-client fee agreement.

• Inasmuch as Weisberg does not reference her other exhibits in her petition, Johnson shall reserve comment until trial, if any.

Part the Third: Johnson’s Responses to Weisberg’s WHEREFORE Clauses

A and B. Johnson received the short order of notice, but disagrees that civil contempt is appropriate.

C. Based on her own false representation, Weisberg seeks a finding of a violation of §17 of SJC Rule 4:01. That is inappropriate.

D. Given that Johnson is 72 years of age, it is without doubt that she will not be seeking reinstatement at the age of 82. Johnson is grossly overweight and smokes several packs of cigarettes daily. Each day from here on in is a gift. Whether there is a finding of contempt or no contempt, she shall continue to seek creative ways to reach her goal of seeing true court reform and the abolishment of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity before her demise.

Clause D is merely proof of Weisberg and her controllers and supervisors’ malicious, intentional, knowing efforts to deprive Johnson of her First Amendment right to free and political speech.

E. Weisberg’s clause E boils down to seeking this Court to order Johnson to put in writing the information the OBC, the BBO, and the Court already has.  It is a spiteful, malicious request.

F. Weisberg’s clause F is based once again on Weisberg’s fraudulent misrepresentation to this Court and does not deserve further comment beyond Johnson’s request that Weisberg be sanctioned in an appropriate manner for her fraud upon this Court. See Johnson’s denial, supra.

G. Weisberg’s clause G seeks this Court to use its discretion. Johnson is sure the Court will.

H. Weisberg’s clause H is an alternative request in case no contempt is found. She seeks only an 8-year rather than a 10-year period before re-instatement is sought. See Johnson’s response to Weisberg’s clause D.

Johnson incorporates herein by reference her assertions in her motions that accompany this Combined Opposition and Answer to the Petition for Contempt:

• Johnson’s Motion for Jury Trial on Petition for Contempt and a Declaration of Whether a Finding of Civil or Criminal Contempt Is Actually Being Sought by Bar Counsel

• Johnson’s Motion to Recuse Justice Francis X. Spina from This Board Disciplinary Action
• 
  

WHEREFORE, because there is a possibility of a jail sentence, this Court must allow Johnson a jury trial. The only other alternative is to dismiss the OBC petition. To do otherwise will deprive Johnson of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

Respectfully submitted, Barbara C. Johnson
 6 October 2006 Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se
6 Appletree Lane
Andover, MA 01810-4102
978-474-0833
BBO #549972

---

[1] In 2002, $147,000,000.00 for 411 grants. In 2003, 430 grants.

[2] . . . [O]nly where the court lacks jurisdiction to make an order or where an order is transparently invalid on its face may a party ignore a court order and attempt to evade sanctions by litigating the validity of the underlying order. Matter of Providence Journal Co., 820 F.2d 1342, 1347 (1st Cir.1986), modified on reh'g, 820 F.2d 1354 (1st Cir.1987). See Vakalis v. Shawmut Corp., 925 F.2d 34, 36-37 (1st Cir.1991).

Oakham Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Town of Oakham, 54 Mass.App.Ct. 80, 87 (2002), cert. denied 437 Mass. 1109 (2002). Johnson has had no opportunity to litigate the validity of the underlying order.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Barbara C. Johnson, hereby certify that on 6 October 2006 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)