5 Motions and Oppositions in Barb's Two Appellate Cases: One, the Appeal of the Judgment of Disbarment and the Other, the Appeal of the Judgment of Contempt

#181, Drano Series

5 Motions and Oppositions in Barb's Two Appellate Cases: One, the Appeal of the Judgment of Disbarment

and
the Other, the Appeal of the Judgment of Contempt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*5 Motions and Oppositions in Barb's Two Appellate Cases: One, the Appeal of the Judgment of Disbarment* and the Other, the Appeal of the Judgment of Contempt *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*

Barbara C. Johnson
Attorney at Law\[1]/
6 Appletree Lane
Andover, MA 01810-4102
978-474-0833
barbaracjohnson@verizon.net

23 March 2007

Susan Mellen, Clerk
Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth
John Adams Courthouse, 1st floor
One Pemberton Square, Suite 1400
Boston, MA 02108-1724

         Re: In re Barbara C. Johnson, SJC-2006-09820
               In re Barbara C. Johnson, SJC-2006-09866
Dear Clerk Mellen:
Please find in this envelope copies of the following motions for filing: two motions and one opposition in SJC-09820 and one motion and one opposition SJC-09866.

FOR FILING IN SJC-09820

1.               JOHNSON’S MOTION TO VACATE BOTH THE ALLOWANCE BY CLERK ON 2/13/2007

OF BAR COUNSEL’S MOTION TO IMPOUND

APPELLANT’S BRIEF [Paper #26]

AND THE CLERK’S ORDER THAT JOHNSON FILE A
REDACTED BRIEF

2.                JOHNSON’S MOTION TO CORRECT DOCKET SHEET
             ENTRIES
             PAPER #29 FOR SJC-09820 AND PAPER #8 FOR SJC-09866

3.                JOHNSON’S OPPOSITION TO PAPER #30 FOR SJC-09820 AND PAPER #9 FOR SJC-09866 (dated 3/16/07) BAR COUNSEL’S MOTION TO IMPOUND PARTS OF
APPELLANT'S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF

FOR FILING IN SJC-09866

4.                JOHNSON’S MOTION TO CORRECT DOCKET SHEET ENTRIES

            PAPER #29 FOR SJC-09820 AND PAPER #8 FOR
SJC-09866

5.                JOHNSON’S OPPOSITION TO PAPER #30 FOR SJC-09820 AND PAPER #9 FOR SJC-09866 (dated 3/16/07) BAR COUNSEL’S MOTION TO IMPOUND PARTS OF APPELLANT'S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF

Sincerely,
Barbara C. Johnson
Barbara C. Johnson

cc:       Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss Weisberg

99 High Street, Boston, MA 02110

[1]         Although Justice Spina, sitting as a single justice in this court, has ordered Johnson not to use this phrase in its order (Paper #79), Johnson is still an attorney at law in the U.S. District Court in Boston and in the First Circuit. In her opinion, she remains also an attorney of law in Massachusetts until there is a disposition of her appeal before the full panel of the Supreme Judicial Court.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

for the Commonwealth

                                                                                           Docket No. SJC-09820

IN RE BARBARA C. JOHNSON

~~~~~~~~~~~

JOHNSON’S MOTION TO VACATE

BOTH THE ALLOWANCE BY CLERK ON 2/13/2007

OF BAR COUNSEL’S MOTION TO IMPOUND APPELLANT’S BRIEF [Paper #26]

AND THE CLERK’S ORDER THAT JOHNSON FILE A REDACTED BRIEF

Now comes Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., [“Johnson”] and moves this Court to vacate the Clerk’s allowance of Bar Counsel’s MOTION TO IMPOUND APPELLANT’S BRIEF and her order to Johnson to file a redacted appellant brief.

As grounds, Johnson states (1) that there is no reasonable cause for (a) the order of redaction and (b) the refiling of a redacted brief, to wit, a brief without the true name of the complainant of Count I of the Petition for Discipline, and (2) that the complainant was a public person, a candidate for public office busily campaigning on television and being interviewed by the print media.

By analogy, Rudy Guliano did not become John Doe when divorcing his second wife; John McCain did not become John Smith in similar circumstances; and Bill Clinton did not become John Smith, Jr., when his marital infidelities became public . . . and most importantly, the three “Monicas” did not become Lydia Pinkhams or Jane Does.

In support, Johnson states:

·       The complainant’s surname appears in the appellant’s brief once on page 3.

·       The complainant’s surname appears once in footnote 40 on page 35 in a citation to the Bristol Probate & Family Court custody and paternity action.

·       The complainant’s given name appears once on page 3, twice on page 4, and once on page 5.

Further, the cost of printing and binding 18 copies for the Court, two for the appellees, and two for Johnson’s file was almost $1400. Johnson cannot afford to pay another $1400 for reprinting.   Clearly, Johnson being deprived of her livelihood by this Court and the single justice has caused the rapid deterioration of Johnson’s financial position. Equally as clearly, her livelihood had been intentionally interfered with

(1)    by the-Board-of-Bar-Overseers-member Attorney Elizabeth Mulvey approving the Bar Counsel’s request to file a Petition of Discipline against Johnson,

(2)    by the publication in January 2003 on the BBO/OBC website that discipline was pending against Johnson,

(3)    by Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss-Weisberg communicating false facts about Johnson to a Boston Herald reporter,

(4)    by Bar Counsel Daniel Crane communicating false facts about Johnson to an Eagle Tribune reporter,

(5)    by the unlawful acts of the appellees and the Clerk of the County Court in the preparation and issuance of an invalid letter of standing.

                         In an attempt to reach a reasonable resolution of the problem, Johnson requested Clerk Susan Mellen either to have the Court pay for the reprinting or to order the appellees to pay for the reprinting, but the Clerk has not acted on Johnson’s request. Johnson also suggested that the Clerk likely had a black magic marker and could redact the complainant’s given name (5 times) and the complainant’s married name from the 18 copies.   The Assistant Bar Counsel can do the same to her own copies if she prefers to have her own copies redacted.   Johnson has no knowledge as to whether the Clerk acted on this latter suggestion.

Further, Johnson has a right and an obligation both as a publisher and a lawyer to report the true facts and to report unscrupulousness in the justice system when she sees it. See also SJC Rule 3:07, Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.3, Reporting Professional Misconduct, Comments (1) and (3) of that rule.   The First Amendment and considerable case law support every facet of Johnson‘s conduct.

WHEREFORE, Johnson prays the order to impound and to redact and refile be VACATED.

          Respectfully submitted,
                                           Barbara C. Johnson
22 March 2007             Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se
                                           6 Appletree Lane
                Andover, MA 01810-4102
                    978-474-0833
BBO #549972 (pending appeal) \[1]/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Barbara C. Johnson, hereby certify that on 23 March 2007 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
23 March 2007             Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se

[1]     Where the Assistant Bar Counsel repeatedly sought extensions of the time to file the OBC/BBO appellee brief, the elongation of the time within which Johnson can expect a disposition of the appeal is unreasonable. For if the full panel does reverse the Judgment of Disbarment, a post-disbarment order such as that entered as Paper #79—to refrain from using “Esq.” and other designations—is irreversibly harmful and damaging to Johnson professionally and personally.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

for the Commonwealth

                                                                     Docket No. SJC-09820

IN RE BARBARA C. JOHNSON

~~~~~~~~~~~

JOHNSON’S MOTION TO CORRECT DOCKET SHEET ENTRIES

PAPER #29 FOR SJC-09820 AND PAPER #8 FOR SJC-09866

Now comes Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., [“Johnson”] and moves this Court to correct the docket sheets for SJC-2006-09820 and SJC-2006-09866.

As grounds, Johnson states that the Clerk’s office treated Papers #29 for SJC-2006-09820 and Paper #8 for SJC-2006-09866 (both dated 3/13/2007) differently than the office treated Papers #27 for SJC-2006-09820 and Paper #6 for SJC-2006-09866 (both dated 2/14/2007) , the latter two being those filed by Bar Counsel Constance Vecchione and Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss-Weisberg on behalf of the Office of Bar Counsel [“OBC”].

SJC-2006-09820

02/14/2007

#27

SERVICE of brief & supplemental appendix for Plaintiff/Appellee Bar Counsel by Susan A. Strauss Weisberg, Ass't Bar Counsel, Constance Vecchione, Bar Counsel.

03/13/2007

#29

SERVICE of appellant's reply brief for Barbara C. Johnson by Barbara C. Johnson, Pro Se. (Note: 9 copies for SJC-9820, 9 copies for SJC-9866)

SJC-2006-09866

02/14/2007

#6

SERVICE of brief & supplemental appendix for Plaintiff/Appellee Bar Counsel by Susan A. Strauss Weisberg, Ass't Bar Counsel, Constance Vecchione, Bar Counsel.

03/13/2007

#8

SERVICE of appellant's reply brief for Barbara C. Johnson by Barbara C. Johnson, Pro Se. (Note: 9 copies for SJC-9820, 9 copies for SJC-9866)

            The result makes it look like the OBC filed 18 copies for each action copies and that Johnson filed only 9 for each. Johnson understands that she and the OBC filed the same number of copies for the combined brief. The docket sheets should, therefore, reflect that the parties filed the same number of copies of their combined briefs.

             WHEREFORE, Johnson prays this motion be allowed and the docket sheet be corrected.

          Respectfully submitted,
                                           Barbara C. Johnson
22 March 2007             Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se
                                           6 Appletree Lane
                Andover, MA 01810-4102
                    978-474-0833
BBO #549972 (pending appeal) \[1]/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Barbara C. Johnson, hereby certify that on 23 March 2007 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
23 March 2007             Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se

[1]     Where the Assistant Bar Counsel repeatedly sought extensions of the time to file the OBC/BBO appellee brief, the elongation of the time within which Johnson can expect a disposition of the appeal is unreasonable. For if the full panel does reverse the Judgment of Disbarment, a post-disbarment order such as that entered as Paper #79—to refrain from using “Esq.” and other designations—is irreversibly harmful and damaging to Johnson professionally and personally.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

for the Commonwealth

                                                                 Docket No. SJC-09820

IN RE BARBARA C. JOHNSON

~~~~~~~~~~~

JOHNSON’S OPPOSITION TO

PAPER #30 FOR SJC-09820 AND PAPER #9 FOR SJC-09866 (dated 3/16/07)

BAR COUNSEL’S MOTION TO IMPOUND

PARTS OF APPELLANT'S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF

Now comes Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., [“Johnson”] and opposes Bar Counsel’s MOTION TO IMPOUND PARTS OF APPELLANT'S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF [Paper #30 for SJC-09820 ].

As grounds, Johnson states that there is no reasonable cause for impounding footnotes 11 and 12 on pages 11 and 12.

In support, Johnson states:

·       Footnote 11 is comprised of ¶¶ 121, 125, and 127 excerpted from the AMENDED COMPLAINT BASED ON THE DEPRIVATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, which was filed in United States District Court [“USDC”] in Boston on or around 25 September 2000 and subsequently uploaded to her website as Drano Series #5 [Impounded Vol. VIII, OBC Trial Exh. 17, http://www.falseallegations.com/complaint-linn.htm].

·       Footnote 12 is comprised of a few one-sentence summaries and opinions and five harmless quotes—below—from the memorandum in opposition to Christopher Salt’s motion to dismiss. It, too, was filed in USDC, Boston, and subsequently uploaded to her website as Drano Series #9 [Impounded Vol. VIII, OBC Trial Exh.    , http://falseallegations.com/- drano9-o-dsm-cs.htm]. The quotes for which the BBO and OBC and the single justice want Johnson’s disbarment are:

o      "justification"   [CS depo, at 15]

o      "there was no diagnosis of sexual abuse, the possibility is not to be eliminated. His fear and anxiety about his father had been confirmed[;] he had undergone a traumatic experience and now suffered from post- traumatic stress" [CS depo, at 34]

o      "parenting" [CS report dated 1/5/92, at 16].

o      "except for one or two" [CS report dated 1/5/92, at 8].

o      “her husband Michael is very important to Brenden and that Michael treats her son as if he were his own" [CS report dated 1/5/92, at 2; also 15].

Although Johnson wrote the given name of the boy, she did not write the surname by which the boy was known in his diverse communities.

·       The mother’s given name, Robyn, was used in the two footnotes three times, but she was a public person, a candidate for public office busily campaigning on television and being interviewed by the print media.

The foolishness of the impoundment of Robyn’s name is proven by analogy. For instance, Rudy Guliano did not become John Doe when divorcing his second wife; John McCain did not become John Smith in similar circumstances; and Bill Clinton did not become John Smith, Jr., when his marital infidelities became public . . . and most importantly, the three “Monicas” did not become Lydia Pinkhams and their children’s names were not disguised by pseudonyms of Tom, Dick, or Harry or Alice, Betty, and Carol. E.g., Chelsea has remained publicly known as Chelsea since birth until this present day.

Johnson had a right and an obligation both as a publisher and a lawyer to report the true facts and report unscrupulousness in the justice system when she sees it. S.J.C. Rule 3:07, Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.3, Reporting Professional Misconduct. “This rule requires lawyers to report serious violations of ethical duty by lawyers and judges.” Id., Comment (1). See also Comments (3). Further, the First Amendment and the case law support every facet of her conduct.

                WHEREFORE, Johnson prays Weisberg’s motion be DENIED. If the Bar Counsel’s Motion to Impound has already been allowed, then Johnson prays the order to impound be VACATED.

          Respectfully submitted,
                                           Barbara C. Johnson
22 March 2007             Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se
                                           6 Appletree Lane
                Andover, MA 01810-4102
                    978-474-0833
BBO #549972 (pending appeal) \[1]/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Barbara C. Johnson, hereby certify that on 23 March 2007 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
23 March 2007             Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se

[1]     Where the Assistant Bar Counsel repeatedly sought extensions of the time to file the OBC/BBO appellee brief, the elongation of the time within which Johnson can expect a disposition of the appeal is unreasonable. For if the full panel does reverse the Judgment of Disbarment, a post-disbarment order such as that entered as Paper #79—to refrain from using “Esq.” and other designations—is irreversibly harmful and damaging to Johnson professionally and personally.

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

for the Commonwealth

                                                                     Docket No. SJC-09866

IN RE BARBARA C. JOHNSON

~~~~~~~~~~~

JOHNSON’S MOTION TO CORRECT DOCKET SHEET ENTRIES

PAPER #29 FOR SJC-09820 AND PAPER #8 FOR SJC-09866

Now comes Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., [“Johnson”] and moves this Court to correct the docket sheets for SJC-2006-09820 and SJC-2006-09866.

As grounds, Johnson states that the Clerk’s office treated Papers #29 for SJC-2006-09820 and Paper #8 for SJC-2006-09866 (both dated 3/13/2007) differently than the office treated Papers #27 for SJC-2006-09820 and Paper #6 for SJC-2006-09866 (both dated 2/14/2007) , the latter two being those filed by Bar Counsel Constance Vecchione and Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss-Weisberg on behalf of the Office of Bar Counsel [“OBC”].

SJC-2006-09820

02/14/2007

#27

SERVICE of brief & supplemental appendix for Plaintiff/Appellee Bar Counsel by Susan A. Strauss Weisberg, Ass't Bar Counsel, Constance Vecchione, Bar Counsel.

03/13/2007

#29

SERVICE of appellant's reply brief for Barbara C. Johnson by Barbara C. Johnson, Pro Se. (Note: 9 copies for SJC-9820, 9 copies for SJC-9866)

SJC-2006-09866

02/14/2007

#6

SERVICE of brief & supplemental appendix for Plaintiff/Appellee Bar Counsel by Susan A. Strauss Weisberg, Ass't Bar Counsel, Constance Vecchione, Bar Counsel.

03/13/2007

#8

SERVICE of appellant's reply brief for Barbara C. Johnson by Barbara C. Johnson, Pro Se. (Note: 9 copies for SJC-9820, 9 copies for SJC-9866)

            The result makes it look like the OBC filed 18 copies for each action copies and that Johnson filed only 9 for each. Johnson understands that she and the OBC filed the same number of copies for the combined brief. The docket sheets should, therefore, reflect that the parties filed the same number of copies of their combined briefs.

             WHEREFORE, Johnson prays this motion be allowed and the docket sheet be corrected.

          Respectfully submitted,
                                           Barbara C. Johnson
22 March 2007             Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se
                                           6 Appletree Lane
                Andover, MA 01810-4102
                    978-474-0833
BBO #549972 (pending appeal) \[1]/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Barbara C. Johnson, hereby certify that on 23 March 2007 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
23 March 2007             Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro Se

[1]     Where the Assistant Bar Counsel repeatedly sought extensions of the time to file the OBC/BBO appellee brief, the elongation of the time within which Johnson can expect a disposition of the appeal is unreasonable. For if the full panel does reverse the Judgment of Disbarment, a post-disbarment order such as that entered as Paper #79—to refrain from using “Esq.” and other designations—is irreversibly harmful and damaging to Johnson professionally and personally.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

for the Commonwealth

                                                                 Docket No. SJC-09866

IN RE BARBARA C. JOHNSON

~~~~~~~~~~~

JOHNSON’S OPPOSITION TO

PAPER #30 FOR SJC-09820 AND PAPER #9 FOR SJC-09866 (dated 3/16/07)

BAR COUNSEL’S MOTION TO IMPOUND

PARTS OF APPELLANT'S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF

Now comes Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., [“Johnson”] and opposes Bar Counsel’s MOTION TO IMPOUND PARTS OF APPELLANT'S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF [Paper #9 for SJC-09866].