#167, Drano Series

  

Barb's Motion for Order Commanding the Board of Bar Overseers (1)   to Correct Docket Sheets for BBO Board Discipline Case Against Barbara C. Johnson (2)   to Provide a Table of Contents Which Identifies Each and Every Document Included in the 12-Volume Set of the Appendix (3)   to Provide a Copy of the 12-Volume Set         of the Appendix to Johnson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Egregious discrimination -- in this case a class-of-one theory IF ANY LAWYER HAD TRIED TO FILE AN APPEAL AND AN APPENDIX WITHOUT A TABLE OF CONTENTS, WITHOUT SUPPLYING COPIES TO THE OPPOSING PARTY, AND WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, THE CLERK WOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED IT FOR FILING ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BUT BELIEVE IT OR NOT Office of Bar Counsel Susan Strauss-Weisberg opposed having to supply a Table of Contents for the 12-volume set, etc. So, Barb includes here, too, her Reply to Weisberg's Opposition  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 MOTION FOR ORDER COMMANDING THE BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS   (1)       TO CORRECT DOCKET SHEETS FOR BBO BOARD             DISCIPLINE CASE AGAINST BARBARA C.             JOHNSON\[1]/ (2)       TO PROVIDE A TABLE OF CONTENTS WHICH IDENTIFIES EACH AND EVERY DOCIMENT INCLUDED IN THE 12-VOLUME SET OF THE APPENDIX (3)       TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE 12-VOLUME SET OF             THE APPENDIX TO JOHNSON Now comes Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., [“Johnson”] and moves this Honorable Court to order the Board of Bar Overseers to correct the docket sheet of the Board Discipline case against Johnson. As grounds, Johnson states the following: ·       that the OBC did not present to Johnson a Table of Contents for the 12-volume Appendix filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, ·       that the 12-volume Appendix appears to be comprised of documents listed in (1) the inaccurate and/or incomplete BBO docket sheet, (2) the “BBO trial” exhibit list, which was partially created as much as two weeks after the alleged “trial” took place, and (3)  a “¾-page key” to the 12 volumes, ·       that the 12-volume set of the Appendix was not supplied to Johnson, ·       that documents that Johnson has not seen have been included in the 12 volumes, and thus are unlawful ex parte submissions to this Court, ·       that the OBC has moved to proceed on and to refer to the original record, which was filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, ·       that according to the Clerk of the Court, this Court is considering as the “record” only those documents included in the OBC/BBO 12-volume set of the Appendix, ·       that according to the Clerk of the Court, this Court is not considering as part of the record those documents that both were filed by Johnson in the BBO and thus were, indeed, made part of the REAL record; and thus ·       that this Court is not considering as part of the record those documents that were filed by Johnson in the BBO and made part of the record. In sum, it is highly prejudicial to Johnson not to provide her with an accurate list of the documents contained in the 12 volumes.  It is also unconstitutional to deprive Johnson of an accurate record of what the OBC and the BBO have presented to this Court for Johnson’s appeal. In support, Johnson states that 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]. 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 straight- forward 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, the following excerpts from the BBO docket sheet point 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, i.e., 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.   22   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.           WHEREFORE, Johnson prays this motion be allowed.                                                 Respectfully submitted, 7 November 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 7 November2006 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 7 November 2006                       Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se [1]   BBO NO. C2-01-0091, BBO NO. C2-01-0090, BBO NO. C2-00-0078, BBO NO. C2-98-0580. [2]    In her Final Exhibit List of 12/16/03 (two weeks after the “trial”), Weisberg wrote the exhibits were “partial.”  In the single justice session, Weisberg filed an alleged copy of Johnson’s Home Page.  It was substantively altered.  Notwithstanding the substantive alteration, Johnson avers that the row, supra, from her Drano Table has been on the Home Page for several years. [3]    In November 2003, the special hearing officer [“the SHO”] ordered the reporter to go off the record when Johnson spoke and to go back on the record when he spoke.  One such order did remain in the transcript.  Inadvertence???  Fig. 1.  11/17/03 Transcript, p. 40, lines 9-12               On the scheduled first day of trial, 2 December 2003, the SHO ordered the public from the hearing room during Johnson’s opening statement.  The reason was bogus.  He claimed that there was an order commanding Johnson to use pseudonyms for certain people.  Despite Weisberg informing the SHO that there was no such order, the SHO and a BBO Assistant General Counsel ignored Weisberg’s admission and demanded that the public leave.  Because of the SHO playing around with the transcription, Johnson did not dare stay without the public, so she, too, left the hearing room. [4]   Johnson also has no recall of ever receiving a copy of the Chalk from Weisberg.

 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH                                                                         Docket No. SJC-09820   IN RE BARBARA C. JOHNSON ~~~~~~~~~~~ JOHNSON’S REPLY TO BAR COUNSEL’S OPPOSITION   TO JOHNSON’S MOTION FOR ORDER COMMANDING   THE BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS (1) TO CORRECT DOCKET SHEETS FOR BBO BOARD DISCIPLINE CASE AGAINST BARBARA C. JOHNSON\[1]/ (2)  TO PROVIDE A TABLE OF CONTENTS WHICH IDENTITIES EACH AND EVERY DOCUMENT INCLUDED IN THE 12-VOLUME SET OF THE APPENDIX, AND  (3) TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE 12-VOLUME SET OF THE APPENDIX TO JOHNSON.   Now comes Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., [“Johnson”] and replies to Bar Counsel’s OPPOSITION TO JOHNSON’S MOTION FOR ORDER COMMANDING THE BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS (1) TO CORRECT DOCKET SHEETS FOR BBO BOARD DISCIPLINE CASE AGAINST BARBARA C. JOHNSON (2)  TO PROVIDE A TABLE OF CONTENTS WHICH IDENTITIES EACH AND EVERY DOCUMENT INCLUDED IN THE 12-VOLUME SET OF THE APPENDIX, AND  (3) TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE 12-VOLUME SET OF THE APPENDIX TO JOHNSON. <>As grounds, Johnson contends that S.J.C. Rule 4:01 is unconstitutional where it does not entitle a respondent to a copy of the so-called record filed by the Office of Bar Counsel and/or the Board of Bar Overseers.   Contrary to Bar Counsel’s assertion through Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss-Weisberg that Johnson did not seek relief from the County Court, Johnson did seek relief but was told she would be allowed to view the 12 volumes of the Appendix only from the counter in the clerk’s office.  This was unacceptable, given that respondent is 72 years of age and has mobility problems.   Johnson also was refused by General Counsel Michael Fredrickson [see copy of email, next page].  Administrative Assistant, right-hand “man” to Fredrickson, June Risk informed Johnson that Weisberg refused to supply a copy of the 12-volume set to Johnson.  [See copy of Johnson’s email to Risk, infra.]   Subject: Bar Counsel v. Johnson    From: Michael Fredrickson <m.fredrickson@massbbo.org>    Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 13:56:31 -0400         To: ‘barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net’          <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>      CC: Susan Strauss Weisberg <s.weisberg@massbbo.org>,          eJune Risk <j.risk@massbbo.org>     Dear Ms. Johnson:   This is in response to your June 29, 2006 email message to Ms. Risk. Attached is an electronic copy of the table of contents to the Information filed with the Court in this matter.  It is in PDF format, as we do not distribute documents in Word format outside the office. The table of contents only summarizes which tabs are in which volume.  Note the footnote, however, which indicates that the tab numbers referred to are the same numbers as paper numbers that appear in the board's docket.  I will ask June to send you a copy of the docket. You have already received a copy of the final exhibit list, a copy of which is also attached. If you find examining the Information at the County Clerk's office to be too burdensome, you are welcome to examine the Board's copy in the Board's offices.  We can deliver it to a conference room, where you may examine it at your leisure. Please call Ms. Risk to make arrangements if you wish to do so. I do not know whether the volumes are tabbed.  It is my understanding that the Information and accompanying documents in our file are tabbed and numbered in the same manner as those filed with the Court. To the extent you appear to be requesting that the Board make you a copy of the Information or its appendix, I must decline your request.  As the party to the proceeding, you either filed or have received every document in the record, and the Board is unwilling to absorb the expense of preparing another copy of the materials. Sincerely yours, Michael Fredrickson  <<Johnson Record TC.pdf>>  <<Johnson final ex list.pdf>>     Michael Fredrickson General Counsel Board of Bar Overseers 99 High Street Boston, MA 02110-2320   Phone: 617-728-8751 Fax:     617-482-8000 Email:  m.fredrickson@massbbo.org     <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>  This e-mail and any attachments thereto are intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail by error, please immediately notify me by return e-mail and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail message or attachment and any printout thereof. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>      Subject: Table of Contents of Appendix to Board's Information From: Barbara C. Johnson  <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net> Date:  Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:41:05 -0400     To: June Risk <j.risk@massbbo.org>   June, I'd like a copy of the Table of Contents of the Appendix to the Board's Information. An emailed copy is preferable.  Then I'll be able to save the TOC and use the FIND tool on it/them.. The Information appears to reference 12 volumes, some impounded, some not. Please be sure that the Table of Contents covers all 12 -- or more -- of the volumes I'd also like the 12 volumes to have the TABS in place, given that the Information refers to the documents according to the TAB number. If the SJC has a page-numbered set of volumes in the Appendix, please be sure to send me a copy of the page-numbered set of volumes. Thank you. I recall someone -- you or Michael or even an SJC clerk -- said I could look at the Board's exhibits in the SJC Clerk's Office. Given that there are 12 bound volumes, it will be impossible for me to look at them standing up and make meaningful notes. Again, thank you for your anticipated assistance in this matter. Barbara -- Barbara C. Johnson Attorney at Law 6 Appletree Lane Andover, MA 01810-4102 978-474-0833 barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net Had Johnson filed an appendix without supplying it to opposing counsel, Johnson’s appellate package, to wit, her brief and appendix, would not have been accepted for filing.  Thus this was a violation of Johnson’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. There was no sense asking the Judge Spina or this Court to order Bar Counsel to produe the 12-volume set, for the bias was evident.  If there had been no bias for the Bar Counsel, Johnson’s Motion to Stay the Judgment of Disbarment until after her appeal would have been allowed.\[2]/ In contrast, Johnson asked, submitted the appendix, and more than a month later has not received a disposition.  It was sent to a quorum.  Why did this Court not require Bar Counsel to identify what was going to be in the supplemental appendix?  If that is not blatant bias, what is?  Johnson still does not know what is going to be in that supposedly limited supplemental appendix!!    The footnote * on page 1 of Bar Counsel’s brief is also disingenuous.  It claims it has a document Drano 84a.  There is no document Drano 84a.  Johnson still does not know what document Weisberg substituted for the non-existent document.  Why did not Weisberg include a copy of Drano 84a as an attachment to her opposition?  Why did not Weisberg include Chalk B as an attachment to her opposition? Because there is no evidence supporting the OBC’s allegations. A brief example of how weak, how transparently invalid, the OBC’s case was against Johnson. The OBC took the buckshot approach in its Petition for Discipline in hopes that some shot would stick on Johnson.  Ultimately, the OBC and the BBO were left with “periphrastic circumlocutions, unsubstantiated conclusions, and bald assertions,”\[3]/ Only two accusations morphic in nature remained in play, but there was no evidence to support either of them. One of the two morphic facts is that there was a psychological report that Johnson had uploaded to her website.  Johnson consistently contended: No, she did not upload such a report to her website.  That report allegedly formed the basis of the accusation supporting Count I that Johnson uploaded confidential and privileged material to her website.  This Court will not find such a report in the 12 volumes. The second of the two morphic facts was that Johnson commingled funds, despite finding that Johnson owed no client any money and that she did not commit fraud or deceit or any misrepresentation.  At no time did the three entities ever identify how much money was allegedly commingled.  This Court will not find any amount identified  in the 12 volumes. To prove that there was no evidence to support those accusations, Johnson called the OBC assistant bar counsel assigned to her case to the stand on 19 October 2006, Day 2 of a contempt hearing before Judge Francis X. Spina.  Johnson asked, In which file or at which URL was the so-called psychological report?\[4]/  Objection.  Sustained.  What is the name of the psychologist who wrote the alleged report?  Objection.  Sustained.  Who was diagnosed or treated?  Objection.  Sustained.  Had Judge Spina allowed Weisberg to answer, Johnson would have had definitive proof that the accusation was false. Similarly, when Johnson asked, How much money was it that I allegedly commingled?  Objection.  Sustained.  Had the judge allowed Weisberg to answer, Johnson would, again, have had definitive proof that the accusation was false. Had Judge Spina heard the answers, he would have had not only to find that the OBC charges and the BBO recommendation were transparently invalid but also to admit that his own holdings were also transparently invalid.  Bar Counsel denies having fabricated documents.  What Bar Counsel fails to admit is that it has hidden one document Johnson discovered was fabricated by Weisberg and that it used another document he (Crane) and she (Weisberg) knew was fabricated either by opposing counsel below or the judge below and used it against Johnson in Count III.  Johnson’s subpoenas duces tecum were quashed by the BBO. The same weakness exists in the Bar Counsel’s opposition.  It’s all smoke and mirrors.             WHEREFORE, Johnson prays her motion be ALLOWED.                                                Respectfully submitted, Barbara C. Johnson 15 November 2006                 Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se                                                 6 Appletree Lane Andover, MA 01810-4102 978-474-0833 BBO #549972 (pending being informed of legal support for Single Justice’s Order (Paper #79, BD-06-039)\[5]/ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barbara C. Johnson, hereby certify that on 16 November2006 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 16 November 2006                      Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se [1] BBO NO. C2-01-0091, BBO NO. C2-01-0090, BBO NO. C2-00-0078, BBO NO. C2-98-0580. [2] Similarly, on 27 October 2006, Bar Counsel filed a motion to file a limited supplemental appendix.  That was allowed the same day.  Johnson was not even given opportunity to receive the motion, never mind, time to oppose the motion.   If that is not bias, what is?  Bar Counsel has never identified those documents which will be in the limited supplemental appendix. [3]  The court may “eschew any reliance on bald assertions, unsupportable conclu­sions, and opprobrious epithets” [Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 16 (1st Cir. 1989) (internal quotations omitted)] and “periphrastic circumlocutions, unsubstantiated conclusions, and outright vituperation.”  United States v. Avx Corp., 962 F.2d 108, 1992.C01.40600 at ¶37 <http://www.versuslaw.com> (1st Cir. 1992).  A plaintiff, including such plaintiffs as the OBC and the BBO, “cannot rely merely on allegations set forth in his pleadings or on bald assertions that facts are disputed.”  Young  v. Boston University, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 586, (2005), citing LaLonde v. Eissner, 405 Mass. 207, 209 (1989), citing Community Natl. Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550, 554 (1976). [4]  Left penurious by the outrageous, criminal attack by the OBC and BBO against Johnson for the last five years, Johnson cannot afford to contract for a transcript.  The questions asked Weisberg are on the disk for Day 2 of the hearing.  Copies of that disk are available in the office for the SJC for Suffolk County. [5]  Where the Assistant Bar Counsel has been repeatedly (Paper #11, 10/27/06, and Paper # 13, 11/10/06) seeking extensions of the time to file the OBC/BBO appellee brief, the elongation of the time within which Johnson can expect a disposition of he appeal is unreasonable. For if the full panel does reverse the Judgment of Disbarment, a post-disbarment order such as that entered as Paper #7—to refrain from using “Esq.” and other designations—is irreversibly harmful and damaging to Johnson professionally and personally.