#168, Drano Series

  

Barb's Motion to Vacate Order Allowing Bar Counsel's Motion to Stay and Consolidate and to File Consolidated Brief on Appeal ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In addition to the absence of due process and equal protection, egregious unlawful discrimination again (on a class-of-one theory) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTE that Drano ##159, 160, and 161, 167 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, 164, and 165 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. NOTE that Drano #166 was filed in the United States District Court, in response to notice that State (possibly an SJC clerk or BBO/OBC Susan Strauss-Weisberg) notified the federal courts of Barb's disbarment in the Commonwealth prior to her appeal being decided. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 TO VACATE ORDER ALLOWING BAR COUNSEL’S MOTION TO STAY AND CONSOLIDATE AND TO FILE CONSOLIDATED BRIEF ON APPEAL   Now comes Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., [“Johnson”] and moves to vacate the order of yet unknown date allowing Bar Counsel’s Motion to Stay and Consolidate and to File Consolidated Brief on Appeal. As grounds for moving to vacate, Johnson states that she was not given the opportunity to oppose bar Counsel‘s motion.\[1]/    It is discriminatory to act on Bar Counsel’s motions immediately but to delay acting on Johnson’s motion long enough to give Bar Counsel time to oppose.\[2]/  The lack of time standards for motions in this type of action deprives the respondent of due process and the equal protection of the laws.  As grounds for opposing the motion, Johnson states that there is no reasonable, rational basis to support Bar Counsel’s motion.  For instance, that Johnson was, in her opinion, unjustly made a prisoner—a political prisoner—for five days does not justify a stay or the consolidation of the appellate case regarding the disbarment with the appellate case regarding the contempt. Case 06-09820, the disbarment appeal, deals with the transparent invalidity of the disciplinary proceedings at the Board and the resulting transparent invalidity of the single justice’s decision, which clearly rubber-stamped what was so obviously a transparently invalid, insupportable recommendation of disbarment. As difficult as the strain is on her belief system, given this Court’s denial of Johnson’s motion for a stay of the Judgment of Disbarment, Johnson optimistically believes this court will reverse that judgment upon reading the Bar Counsel’s nebulous, specious, factually and legally unsupported arguments—arguments which the Bar Counsel has never made in any court or quasi-court.   In fact, given the paucity of evidence to justify the disbarment of Johnson, she, perhaps naively, believes that the full panel—sans Spina—must reverse the serious, if not tragic, error of Judge Spina’s judgment. Further, in denying Johnson’s Motion for a Stay of the disbarment, this Court unforgivably failed to consider the rights of Johnson’s clients, who have had to find—and but for one who had little choice—and have been unable to find new counsel.  The denial of Johnson’s Motion to Stay deprived Johnson’s clients not only of the counsel of their choice but has seriously interfered with the integrity of the prosecution of their cases.  This Court had no right to interfere with the cases of Johnson’s clients.  In so doing, this Court acted outside its jurisdiction and deprived Johnson’s clients of the rights to seek remedies from courts of law.    Notwithstanding Johnson’s assertion that the disbarment had nothing to do with anything Johnson did, the deprivation of Johnson’s clients’ rights was also based on nothing that the clients did.   Her clients were simply pawns who got in this Court’s way to checkmate Johnson.   (And by allowing another extension to Bar Counsel, this Court further jeopardizes Johnson’s clients’ rights by delaying perhaps both the reversal of Johnson’s disbarment and the belated restoration of their constitutional rights.) Moreover, Johnson has a right to learn the OBC/BBO arguments and has a right to have them before this Court for scrutiny.  Johnson also has a right to hear them prior to writing her brief on the contempt issue.  This Court must not allow the Bar Counsel and the BBO to hide behind a “favored-party” status in order to avoid having to set out arguments sufficient to oppose Johnson’s appeal. Additionally, if this Court does decide to reverse the Single Justice’s Judgment of Disbarment, Johnson’s clients, who are looking around for new counsel and have not yet found anyone to represent them, will be fortunate in getting their counsel of choice back again.  Why should this Court allow another stay and further jeopardize Johnson’s clients’ rights by further delay? The Judgment of Contempt is separate.  The appeal from that judgment will burden only Johnson and NOT her clients, albeit, now, former clients. Items ##3 and 4 of Bar Counsel’s motion are based on falsities.  No judicial economy or efficiency will be effected by a consolidation.  Judicial economy will only occur if this Court sacrifices its concentration on the transparent invalidity of the board proceedings in favor of concentration on the contempt. Given that Bar Counsel has considerable staff, Bar Counsel can focus on the contempt issue separately.  Nothing that Bar Counsel argues has any logic, need, necessity, persuasiveness.  Bar Counsel continues to argue periphrastic conclusions and bald assertions.  Nothing of substance can be found in any of their writings.  They win motions only because of their “favored-party” status. Further, Bar Counsel’s proposed schedule is prejudicial to Johnson.  Johnson is entitled to 40 days to write her brief and prepare her appendix.  She shall not be satisfied with any departure from the appellate rules.  Within the same period, she must also write an appellate brief for her case against the BBO, the OBC, Former Bar Counsel Daniel Crane, and OBC ABC Weisberg.  That brief is critical to her and it might require her to travel the entire appellate route to Washington, D.C.             Johnson will also likely need to write and file a Reply brief in this instant appeal.             And Johnson has a right to read and possibly use arguments against the BBO and the OBC for her appellant’s brief in her appeal of the unjustifiable Judgment of Contempt.             Other collateral actions instigated by the false allegations and false report of the OBC, BBO, and the single justice’s Judgment of Disbarment have also begun.  Johnson has had to and still must find the time to respond to them.\[3]/  Being papered to death, allowing 2 days for each task, does simply not comport with notions of fundamental fairness.             Further, why should Bar Counsel be permitted a longer time than the rules allow to file an appellee brief.  Aren’t two extensions enough extensions?  How far will the bias in favor of a very corrupt OBC and BBO be carried?  The BBO and OBC are like spoiled children.  Once they get their way, they push and push for more from their parent Court, which allows them to be thoroughly spoiled and not comport with notions of due process and equal protection.             It truly is time for the SJC to clean up the BBO’s and the OBC’s act.  It is not becoming either to those affiliated entities or to the SJC itself.  As reported by the Associated Press, Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was concerned after a recent judicial conference about the Courts being challenged and, particularly, about judicial independence being challenged.  Is that not a signal that it is time for the courts—including this one— to be scrupulous about dispensing justice.   If this Court shoves justice aside, it is doubtful that that relief will come any time soon.  Although Justice O’Connor laid the challenge at the feet of legislatures and executives, the challenge, according to what Johnson has observed, is from the people across this entire nation.  The courts could get relief from today’s ever-present challenge, by acknowledging a time-worn adage, What goes around comes around?  Be fair, get fairness.  What better recipe to use when addressing the righteous disgruntlement of today’s troubled populace?             WHEREFORE, Johnson prays the allowance of the Bar Counsel’s motion to stay and consolidate be vacated.                                          Respectfully submitted, 16 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)\[4]/   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barbara C. Johnson, hereby certify that on 16 November 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 16 November 2006                   Barbara C. Johnson, Pro Se [1]   Johnson was literally editing her opposition to Bar Counsel’s motion when she received in an email the notice that Bar Counsel’s motion had been allowed.  She had begun drafting the opposition within 24 hours of having received the motion by first-class mail.  Giving Johnson only 24 hours-give-or take-a-few to oppose a motion and giving Bar Counsel a week or more to oppose a motion is discriminatory. (Johnson herein invokes discrimination of a class-of-one theory.  See Rule 27 Petition for Hearing of BD-2006-039, in Appendix, Petition, pp. 12-13.) [2]  On 27 October 2006, too, 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 to oppose the motion.   If that is not bias, what is?  The prosecuting Assistant Bar Counsel has not bothered identify those documents which will be in the limited supplemental appendix. [3]  Notice from the Realty Board, although Johnson has not dealt with real estate since the ‘70s, and from the IRS, although Johnson has never dealt with the IRS in any case, and has never had the intention of doing so.  Notwithstanding her not practicing in those areas, the despoiling of her name throughout government is a despicable, unconscionable, and unnecessary act, evidently according to some little known rule.  Therefore she must respond, belatedly or not.   Similarly, because of notices from this Court to the U.S. District Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals, Johnson has had to cope with those deadlines, too.   That she made one of the deadlines and will the second, as well, is nothing short of a miracle.  Clearly whoever has written the rules had no common sense whatsoever, and if so, certainly no consideration of the consequences of the rules, namely the total absence of fundamental fairness to the target of the rules.  [4]  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, such as “counsel” or attornmey”—is irreversibly harmful and damaging to Johnson professionally and personally.

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