#173, Drano Series

  

Barb's Response to Show Cause Request by First Circuit Court of Appeals ~~~~~~~~~~ The First Circuit's Order to Show Cause and Barb's Response ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On December 5, 2006. the First Circuit issued a second Order: As an appeal of the disbarment order is pending to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, disciplinary proceedings in this court are stayed until further order.  Attorney Johnson shall file a status report every three months and shall promptly furnish us with a copy of the SJC's opinion on appeal once it issues.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

BARB'S RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE  ORDER

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the First Circuit                                                                                     NO.: 06-8035   IN RE: BARBARA C. JOHNSON _____________________________________________ SHOW OF CAUSE WHY AN ORDER SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED DISBARRING BARBARA C. JOHNSON FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW BEFORE THIS COURT (A hearing is requested)                Now comes Barbara C. Johnson ["Johnson"] and claims that   (a)       that the procedure throughout the entire State Board Discipline action was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; and   (b)       that there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the Board could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject; and   (c)             that the imposition of the same discipline by this court would result in grave injustice; and (d)            that there was no misconduct established by either the Office of Bar Counsel or the Board of Bar Overseers or by the single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County (the appeal to the SJC for the Commonwealth is pending, the OBC Appellee brief not yet due) and thus no discipline was warranted.               In support, Johnson files with this pleading the documents filed in the State forums. [App.]            In sum, when hoping to crack the judicially created doctrine of judicial immunity by invoking Article V of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Johnson sued in the United States District Court four State-family-court judges who had egregiously contravened mandatory statutes.    Article V provides that all three branches of government—–including officers and magistrates—– are accountable to all the people all the time.  Judge George O’Toole dismissed the case on the grounds of immunity.  The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. When Johnson ran for governor on a platform of court reform and the abolishment of judicial immunity and then appeared on two TV debates and demanded "Accountability, Accountability, Accountability," she became a marked woman. In fact, within weeks after election day, Johnson was notified that a Petition for Discipline would issue against her.  Soon after Xmas and the New Year, it did.  The high court, which controls and supervises the BBO and the OBC, had sent the message that it is acceptable both to falsely charge and disbar a lawyer who opposes a judge.              The OBC took the buckshot approach in its Petition for Discipline in hopes that some shot would stick on her.  Ultimately, the OBC and the BBO were left with “periphrastic circumlocutions, unsubstantiated conclusions, and bald assertions,”\[1]/ 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. 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.  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?\[2]/  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.  Also significant is that at the 2-day “trial” beginning on 2 December 2003 ·       there were no witnesses against Johnson,          ·       the public was ordered out of the hearing room, (Johnson              was entitled to a public trial.) ·        Johnson left the hearing room with the public,\[3]/ ·        the documentary evidence was primarily unauthenticated files from her website, ·        the other documentary evidence consisted of documents Johnson had and still has not seen, ·        the only persons present at the sham trial was the hearing officer, OBC Assistant Bar Counsel Weisberg, and BBO Assistant General Counsel Carol Wagner, and ·        the alleged sources of confidential and privileged material was not revealed until 16 December 2003,  two weeks after the sham trial had ended.   According to the transcript, the information was supplied on Chalk B.  Johnson has never seen Chalk B. Although Judge Spina, sitting in the single-justice session, issued a Judgment of Disbarment and denied Johnson’s Motion to Stay the Judgment of Disbarment, her appeal to the full panel of the SJC is pending.  OBC ABC Weisberg’s appellee brief is due 22 November 2006 (The due date was extended from November 9th, and the OBC is seeking yet another extension.)  No hearing date has yet been set.  Given that prior to filing her appellate brief, the full panel, too, of the SJC denied the Motion to Stay, causing harm and damage to her clients (for she was ordered to withdraw from their cases prior to her appeal being resolved), Johnson has concluded that the Judgment of Disbarment was predetermined, just as Johnson had concluded when she first received the Petition for Discipline.    The Judgment of Disbarment was the result of a political decision.   Where it is impossible to establish conclusively the misconduct by Johnson for purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in this court, this action must be dismissed. Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury.                                                   Respectfully submitted,                                                   Barbara C. Johnson, pro se   15 November 2006                                                              Barbara C. Johnson, Esq.                                                   6 Appletree Lane                                                   Andover, MA 01810-4102                                                   978-474-0833                                                   First Circuit Bar Number 36719   [1]  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). [2]  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. [3]  A month earlier, at a pretrial hearing, the hearing officer had ordered the stenographer to go off the record when Johnson spoke but stay on the record when he spoke.  (Record of this appears in the transcript for 17 November 2003.  A scanned in copy of an excerpt appears on p. 13 of Johnson’s appellate brief tiled in the SJC for the full panel)  Therefore when the public was ordered out of what was a sham trial, Johnson also left, fearing that the hearing officer could then invent what Johnson allegedly said