#190,

Judge Joseph L. Tauro's Order and Barb's Preliminary Documents (1) Notice of Appeal of the Imposition of Discipline Identical to that Imposed by Massachusetts (2) Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (3) Affidavit to Accompany Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (4) Motion for Court to Amend and Revise Its Order of 29 September 2008 On Monday, 6 October 2008 Barb electronically filed this pleading in the United States District Court in Boston
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS * In re BARBARA C. JOHNSON    *              MBD No. 06-10385-JLT *   ORDER   September 29, 2008   TAURO, J.                   On August 9, 2006, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County ordered that, effective thirty days thereafter, Respondent Barbara C. Johnson be disbarred from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. On October 2, 2006, in accordance with Local Rule 83.6, the Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts: (1) notified Respondent of the filing in this court of a certified copy of the Judgment of Disbarment; and (2) ordered Respondent to show cause why the imposition of identical discipline by this court would be unwarranted and the reasons therefor.                    Local Rule 83.6(2)(D) requires this court to impose identical discipline unless Respondent demonstrates upon the face of the record of the state proceedings that: (1) Respondent was deprived of due process; (2) the infirmities of proof create a clear conviction that this court should not accept the conclusion reached; (3) the imposition of the same discipline by this court would result in grave injustice; or (4) the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline.                    After a Hearing on September 22, 2008, and upon consideration of Parties’ submissions, this court hereby orders that: 1.          Respondent Barbara Johnson shall be subject to discipline in the District of Massachusetts identical to that imposed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Supreme Judicial Court’s August 9, 2006 Judgment of Disbarment [#1–2].   IT IS SO ORDERED.                                                           /s/  Joseph L. Tauro                                                       United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                                                                                  MISC. BUSINESS DOCKET NO.: 06-MC-10385   IN RE: BARBARA C. JOHNSON _____________________________________________   NOTICE OF APPEAL             Notice is hereby given that the respondent in the above-named case hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from the Order issued on 29 September 2008 [Paper 21] and entered in this action on the 30th day of September 2008.  As of 4 October 2008, no separate judgment has entered into the docket.                                       Respectfully submitted,                                       Barbara C. Johnson, pro se   4 October 2008                                    /s/ Barbara C. Johnsonbarbaracjohnson@verizon.net                                       Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro se                                       6 Appletree Lane                                       Andover, MA 01810-4102                                       978-474-0833                                       Formerly BBO #549972                                                               First Circuit Bar No. 36719
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                                                                                 MISC. BUSINESS DOCKET NO.: 06-MC-10385   IN RE: BARBARA C. JOHNSON _____________________________________________
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS             The respondent asks leave to file her appeal of the ORDER of September 29, 2008, without prepayment of costs and to proceed in forma pauperis. Respondent has previously been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the following courts: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth United States Supreme Court             Respondent’s affidavit or declaration in support of this motion is attached hereto.                                         Respectfully submitted,                                       Barbara C. Johnson, pro se   4 October 2008                                    /s/ Barbara C. Johnsonbarbaracjohnson@verizon.net                                       Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro se                                       6 Appletree Lane                                       Andover, MA 01810-4102                                       978-474-0833                                       Formerly BBO #549972                                                               First Circuit Bar No. 36719
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS   MISC. BUSINESS DOCKET NO.: 06-MC-10385 Appeal No. _____________   __________________________________   IN RE: BARBARA C. JOHNSON __________________________________   Affidavit to Accompany Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis
I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that, because of my poverty, I cannot prepay the docket fees of my appeal or post a bond for them. I believe I am entitled to redress. I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury under United States laws that my answers on this form are true and correct. (28 U.S.C. § 1746; 18 U.S.C. § 1621.) Signed: /s/ Barbara C. Johnson barbaracjohnson@verizon.net Date: __4 October 2008____________________________     My issues on appeal include but are not limited to those issues and sub-issues which I brought before this court:  (1) 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 (2) 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 (3) the imposition of the same discipline by this court would result in grave injustice;  and (4) there was no misconduct established by either the Office of Bar Counsel or the Board of Bar Overseers or by the single justice or the full panel of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; thus no discipline was warranted. [Insert form for financial statement]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS   MISC. BUSINESS DOCKET NO.: 06-MC-10385 Appeal No. _____________   __________________________________   IN RE: BARBARA C. JOHNSON __________________________________
MOTION FOR COURT TO AMEND AND REVISE ORDER OF 29 SEPTEMBER 2008             Now comes Respondent and moves this court to amend and revise its Order of 29 September 2008 so that it includes Findings of Fact and Opinion.    As grounds, Respondent states that the Order iterated no facts and no opinions.   As the Order stands naked, it is impossible for the Appeals Court to determine without speculation (1) whether the Order is based on substantial evidence and/or (2) whether the Order is arbitrary, capricious, or illegal.   Cf.  Taylor v. Sterrett, 600 F.2d 1135, 1145 (C.A.Tex., 1979) (vacated and remanded).  See also Foulke v. C. I. R., T.C. Memo. 1955-175, 1955 WL 314, Tax Court 1955.   Further, the Order as issued is violative of Respondent’s right to constitutional due process.   In Pennsylvania, this issue was reached when both the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the  Legislature answered the question in Olim. The Supreme Court said:   A general statement of findings of fact in support of, and the reasons for, each order is required to be filed with the order. The same procedure is required for Changing or revising an order fixing prices as that in promulgating it.   City of Pittsburgh v. Milk Control Commission, 86 Dauph. 123, 128 (1966) (sitting as Commonwealth Court) (emphasis in original) quoting Colteryahn Sanitary Dairy v. Milk Control Commission, 332 Pa. 15, 20 [1 A.2d 775] (1983).   Clover Farms Dairy v. Brumbaugh, 586 F.Supp. 1227, 1232 (D.C.Pa.,1984).             In support, Respondent states that this Court wrote;   Local Rule 83.6(2)(D) requires this court to impose identical discipline unless Respondent demonstrates upon the face of the record of the state proceedings that: (1) Respondent was deprived of due process; (2) the infirmities of proof create a clear conviction that this court should not accept the conclusion reached; (3) the imposition of the same discipline by this court would result in grave injustice; or (4) the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline   but failed to state how Respondent did not demonstrate that all four items applied, where (1) Respondent was given nothing resembling a trial, never mind a fair trial or even the appearance of a fair trial, (2) there were no witnesses against Johnson, (3) all her trial witness subpoenas were unconstitutionally quashed, (4) there was not one iota of evidence of misconduct, (5) even what she allegedly did did not constitute the type of conduct that under the practices and policies of the Single Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court could call for disbarment, and (6) all the remainder of items included in her brief supporting her Objections and her attachments from the record applied.               WHEREFORE this motion must be allowed or the ORDER vacated and the action against the Respondent dismissed.                                                                                           Respectfully submitted,                                       Barbara C. Johnson, pro se   4 October 2008                                    /s/ Barbara C. Johnsonbarbaracjohnson@verizon.net                                       Barbara C. Johnson, Esq., Pro se                                       6 Appletree Lane                                       Andover, MA 01810-4102                                       978-474-0833                                       Formerly BBO #549972                                                               First Circuit Bar No. 36719