#169, Drano Series

  

 

Barb's Opposition to Bar Counsel’s Motion to Impound and Disregard Portions of Johnson’s Appendix, to File a Limited Supplemental Appendix, and to Proceed on and Refer to the Original Record.   If Bar Counsel’s Motion Impound Has Been Allowed, Then Johnson’s Motion Is One to Vacate the Impoundment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The SJC docket sheet is vague and notices seem delayed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The BBO and OBC want everything impounded. Impoundment equals secrecy! Barb does not like secrecy. The OBC motion was allowed without giving Barb a chance to oppose.

NOTE that Drano ##159, 160, and 161, 167, and 168 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. 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 OPPOSITION TO BAR COUNSEL’S MOTION TO IMPOUND AND DISREGARD PORTIONS OF JOHNSON’S APPENDIX, TO FILE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX, AND TO PROCEED ON AND REFER TO THE ORIGINAL RECORD. IF BAR COUNSEL’S MOTION IMPOUND HAS BEEN ALLOWED, THEN JOHNSON’S MOTION IS ONE TO VACATE THE IMPOUNDMENT   Now comes Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., [“Johnson”] and opposes Bar Counsel’s MOTION TO IMPOUND AND DISREGARD PORTIONS OF JOHNSON’S APPENDIX, TO FILE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX, AND TO PROCEED ON AND REFER TO THE ORIGINAL RECORD.    As grounds, Johnson states that opposing counsel characterized, generally, everything Johnson filed as impounded and all the OBC filed as unimpounded.  Standards were not followed, established law was ignored, Johnson’s rights to due process and equal protection were ever-absent, and arbitrariness and capriciousness were constant throughout the disciplinary hearings almost from the filing of the Petition for Discipline through the filing of the Information in the Single Justice session of this Court.  The proceedings were so blighted by the OBC’s and the BBO’s unconstitutional and unlawful acts, the proceedings can only described as being like leaves in a field after vast swarms of locusts had devastated the vegetation.   Unfortunately, not knowing what exactly was included in the 12-volume appendix (because the OBC/BBO failed to file a comprehensive Table of Contents), Johnson can only refer this panel to Drano #106 on her website, where she published in reverse chronological order the primary procedural and substantive motions and oppositions she filed with the BBO. Moreover, given that the attachments to the Bar Counsel’s motion are not numbered consecutively and bear no identification by letters or tabs, Johnson can refer to them only by title and rely on this Court to flip through Bar Counsel’s many pages and hope that the flipper can find the correct pages.  For instance, there are two copies Bar Counsel’s Motion for Revised Protective Order attached to his motion.  One appears to be a copy of the motion as filed and is time-stamped “Dec 16 2003,” which is two weeks after the sham “trial” had come to an end.   The other bears an endorsement dated 12/29/03 by then-BBO-Chair, M. Ellen Carpenter.  The significance is that the OBC’s revised motion for a protective and the belated order by endorsement might have well have been the Yellow Pages.  That is, given that they were filed after the sham trial, they must not be considered part of the record in the Board Discipline case.   It is tantamount to tagging the murder victim’s name onto the record after the jury had been excused.  The significant Motion for Protective and Impoundment Order filed by the OBC at the outset of the disciplinary action has not been included—as far as Johnson can tell—either in the OBC/BBO appendix’s 12 volumes or as an attachment to the motion filed in this Court on or around 27 October 2006, around two weeks ago.  That was the Orwellian motion—or perhaps the golemesque motion—in which Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss-Weisberg asked the BBO for an order impounding Johnson’s written conclusions and Johnson’s thoughts!!   And Carpenter allowed Weisberg’s motion. The motion reminded Johnson of two schizophrenics who walked into Johnson’s law office over the years.  One complained of the FBI planting a chip just over his right eyebrow to listen to his thoughts.  The other complained of some Mafioso-connected dentist as having planted a recorder next to the root of one of his rear teeth . . . for the same purpose, to listen to his thoughts    Maybe the schizophrenics were not schizophrenics; maybe they were just men who had encountered Weisberg and Carpenter, the dynamic duo, prior to coming to Johnson’s office.             Only the unprofessional expression “crazy” can accurately express the experience of dealing with the OBC and the BBO personnel.             As to not moving to enlarge the record to include certain pleadings included in Johnson’s appendix: Such a motion would have been futile and the law does not require the doing of useless acts.  That is no worse that the OBC and BBO filling 12 volumes with documents never supplied Johnson and totally irrelevant to the entire disciplinary action.  That is no worse than the BBO hearing officer and Assistant General Counsel Carol Wagner ordering the public out of the hearing room, in contravention of the rule which gave Johnson the right to a public trial.   That is no worse that the BBO hearing officer telling the stenographer to go off the record when Johnson spoke and go on the record when he spoke.  (See page 13 of Johnson’s appellate brief, in which she included a scanned excerpt of the transcript containing that instruction.)   It is for this reason that Johnson left with the public when the public was ordered out.  There was no trust left.  Without question, Johnson was not going to partake in any proceeding in what was clearly a Kangaroo court, one in which Johnson could have been false accused of saying and doing unimaginable things.             Weisberg criticizing Johnson for not including certain items in her appendix is disingenuous, given that Weisberg and General Counsel Michael Fredrickson contended that the 12 volumes of her appendix contained the complete record.  Evidently, Weisberg’s and Fredrickson’s assertions were untrue.   Naively, Johnson believed them . . . to a point . . . and made no attempt to include what she had been told the OBC/BBO’s 12 volumes included.             Lastly, and perhaps of most significance, is the fact that many pleadings have been uploaded to Johnson’s website prior to any order of impoundment.   Without knowing which pleadings and other documents have been impounded, because no intelligible list has been supplied, Johnson has had insufficient notice and her First Amendments rights might be being impaired.   If so, Johnson will continue to assiduously stand on and protect her First Amendment rights.             In sum, (1) Johnson opposes impounding her appendix.  The original impoundment order and the use of pseudonyms were based on bogus reasons, if any were supplied at all.   (2)  Johnson opposes Bar Counsel filing a so-called “limited supplemental appendix” with Weisberg’s brief, for Weisberg has not listed the proposed contents.  (3)  Johnson opposes Item 3 of Weisberg’s “WHEREFORE” clause, for it is not only grammatically incorrect, the punctuation is also incorrect, making it impossible to understand.             Johnson does seek affirmatively (1) that the BBO hearing officer’s findings and rulings be stricken because they are (a) based on an unconstitutional hearing peopled solely by OBC ABC Weisberg, BBO AGC Carol Walker, and himself and (b) based on evidence improperly admitted, i.e., all improperly authenticated, documents improperly undisclosed to Johnson, and otherwise improper as Johnson noted in her motion to strike and in her appellate brief, and (2) that the BBO Recommendation be stricken because it was based on the improper and unconstitutional hearing officer’s report.             WHEREFORE, Johnson prays Weisberg’s motion be DENIED and Johnson’s within countermotion be allowed.  If the Bar Counsel’s Motion to Impound has already been allowed, then Johnson prays the order to impound be VACATED.                                        Respectfully submitted, 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)\[1]/   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] 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.