False Allegations ~ False Accusations ~ Recovered Memories
b

 
 
 
 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT

Essex, ss.                                                                                           A.C. No. 20l2-J-150

Remanded by Appeals Court: No. 2010-P-0471 
Superior Ct. at Lawrence, No. 06-332-C
Consolidated and formerly Superior Ct. at Lawrence, No. 2006-01263-C
Lawrence District Ct., No. 0618-SU-0067
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Barbara C. Johnson,
                                    Plaintiff/Appellant 
v.

Marc I. Johnson, individually and as Trustee, 
H. Yvonne van Bodengraven a/k/a Yvonne Johnson, 
                                 Defendants/Appellees 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

COMBINED
MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE WILLIAM MEADE
ON GROUNDS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PREJUDICE,
AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW G.L. c. 261, §27D, RELIED UPON FOR CLOSING THE CASE
AND
MOTION TO VACATE CLOSURE OF CASE AND RESTORE TO THE OPEN LIST
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now comes Barbara C. Johnson [“Mother”], the Appellant, and moves this court (1) to recuse Judge William Meade from the case on the grounds of conflict of interest, personal prejudice, and failure to follow G.L. c. 261, §27D, upon which he relied for closing the case, and (2) to vacate closure of case and restore to the open list.

As grounds, Mother states that when she practiced law in Massachusetts, William Meade was opposing counsel representing the Commonwealth on at least one case and maybe even two or three. Mother recalls extensive communication with “Bill Meade.” 

Because this case arises out of political retaliation and discrimination, the appointment of Judge Meade who has always represented the Commonwealth demonstrates that the decision by  the judge (1) is not fundamentally fair and (2) denies Mother of a neutral trier or fact and law.

 On 19 April 2012, Meade wrote:

RE#1: Without deciding the question of the petitioner's indigency, after review, all relief requested is denied. To the extent petitioner seeks review of an order of the trial court denying her request for waiver of costs associated with the preparation of transcripts, she is directed to G. L. c. 261, s 27D. (Meade, J.) *Notice/Attest/Cornetta
General Law c. 261, §27D, does not apply to this case for several reasons,   Underlying each of the several reasons is the failure of both the superior court and the appeals court to apply the law as written.  It is well-settled that every word in a statute has meaning.  Neither court followed the law.
` The relevant part of c. 261, §27D reads:
Section 27D. In any case where the court denies a request for waiver, substitution or payment by the commonwealth of fees and costs, pursuant to section twenty-seven C or any other provision of law, the applicant may take an appeal as hereafter provided. . . . Upon being notified of the denial the applicant shall also be advised of his right of appeal, and he shall have seven days thereafter to file a notice of appeal with the clerk or register.
Section 27D explicitly states that it applies when “the court denies a request for waiver, substitution or payment by the commonwealth of fees and costs.”  In this case, the court did not deny Mother’s request.  Instead, Judge Cornetta wrote twice, on both 7 and 19 March 2012:
Motion (P#157) No action is taken on the request inasmuch as the telephonic hearing was not recorded but only witnessed by Clerl's [sic] office staff - all parties participated in the same with the Court. 3/7/2012 (Robert A. Cornetta, Justice). Notices mailed 3/7/2012
Judge Cornetta, instead,
(1) took no action on the request and 
(2) therefore did not notify Mother of a denial and
(3) did not advise Mother of her right to appeal
Those three actions prove that c. 261, §27D, absolutely does not apply.

Therefore Judge Meade, in his personal anxiousness and long-standing prejudice against Mother, made an impetuous decision to close unlawfully Mother’s legitimate and appropriate interlocutory appeal.

WHEREFORE, Judge Meade’s decision must be vacated and the case be restored to the list of open cases.  There is no reason Mother’s case must not be heard on its merits.

20 April  2012         Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Barbara C. Johnson
Barbara C. Johnson, Pro Se
Apdo #404-4013
Alajuela, Atenas, Atenas
20501-Costa Rica
barbjohnson74@gmail.com
SKYPE ID: barbjohnson74
SKYPEIN No.: 1-978-961-0079
Local Costa Rican phone: 506-2446-6724


Affidavit of Barbara C. Johnson

I, Barbara C. Johnson, depose as follows:

1.  I am the appellant, movant, and affiant in the above-captioned
     case, and the plaintiff in the case entered into the docket as No.
     2006-00332-C in the Essex County Superior Court at Lawrence.

2. All that I have written in the within pleading is true and accurate.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury.

20 April  2012         Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Barbara C. Johnson
Barbara C. Johnson, Pro Se
Apdo #404-4013
Alajuela, Atenas, Atenas
20501-Costa Rica
barbjohnson74@gmail.com
SKYPE ID: barbjohnson74
SKYPEIN No.: 1-978-961-0079
Local Costa Rican phone: 506-2446-6724
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on 20 April 2012 I served by email a true and accurate copy of the above pleading on opposing counsel of record, Kenneth J. Rossetti, Esq., Barton & Rossetti, P.C. 2 Haven Street, Suite 204. Reading, MA 01867. 

                                 /s/ Barbara C. Johnson
20 April 2012      Barbara C. Johnson