|
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex, ss. A.C. No. 20l2-J-150 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,
Marc I. Johnson, individually and as Trustee,
COMBINED
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 ` The relevant part of c. 261, §27D reads: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. 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 3/7/2012Judge Cornetta, instead, (1) took no action on the request andThose 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
I, Barbara C. Johnson, depose as follows: 1. I am the appellant, movant, and affiant in the above-captioned20 April 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Barbara C. Johnson 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
|