#42, Drano Series
Letters to
Chief Judge Martha P. Grace,
Juvenile Court,
and
Chief Judge Sean M. Dunphy,
Probate & Family Court
Context of the Letters to the Chief Justices
Jim Linnehan has not seen his son in 13 years. He -- and now I -- contend that the deprivation of his parental rights came about not only as a result of false allegations levied by the mother of his son but also as a result of a monstrous system, in which hysteria rules, adequate training is absent, laws allow the judiciary to abrogate their responsibility and pass it on to folks who benefit financially from finding abuse even where there is none.
Jim is one the system's victims. He is also one unsung hero who has never given up the fight to have a relationship with his son.
I am his seventh lawyer. The other six fell by the wayside, having been wimped out, professionally castrated, by the system.
Since 1988, there were two "fronts" to the war: One, in Juvenile Court, where a Care and Protection of Brenden Linnehan was brought. The other, in Bristol County Probate & Family Court in New Bedford, where Jim brought a Paternity and Custody case.
The then-Chief-Justice assigned BOTH cases to one Juvenile Court judge, who was to act as THE judge in BOTH cases.
Juvenile Court conducts CLOSED sessions, resulting in a Kangaroo-type court, where there can be no scrutiny by the public and where possibly unscrupulous practices -- such as the denial of due process -- by a sitting judge can be swept under a carpet. This is what happened in Jim's case. There never was a hearing at which evidence was taken. He was never allowed to put someone on the stand and cross-examine them. He was never allowed to rebut any of the bogus bogus reports written by an assortment of workers.
After 1988, he saw his son for two 40-minute sessions in 1992 with therapists, who did find that he and his son should have a relationship . . . but their recommendations were shoved aside.
Fast forward to last year. Jim found me. I brought a Complaint for Modification in Probate & Family Court. I put out some subpoenas on Eli Newberger of Boston Children's Hospital in order to take his deposition. The wagons circled: the wagons of the mother, her attorney, the child's attorney, Eli Newberger and his counsel, and the P&F Court judge, who was or had shared membership, if not also friendship, with Eli Newberger in APSAC, American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.
All hell broke loose.
The judge (Prudence McGregor, who had already been sanctioned for judicial misconduct), wrote that all future proceedings should be held in Juvenile Court. I thought over my dead body. Probate & Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Paternity and Custody cases brought pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 209C.
Jim had suffered enough from the outrageous conduct of those in the system -- from the judges through the lowliest social worker. The child, too, has suffered. He has suffered a parentectomy, specifically, a fatherectomy.
I brought suit against Eli Newberger and the workers. (See the Drano Series.)
At some point, I suggested to mom's attorney that the son, Brenden, then 15 and probably almost 6 feet tall, and dad should meet and go to a ballgame and get to know each other. That suggestion was rebuffed by total silence.
I then decided I'd sort the stack of photos Jim had given me and choose some to upload them to the site, so that the public could see who this father and son about whom I had been writing were.
Then, unexpectedly, mom began running for public office. The townsfolk tuned into this site and saw the pleadings, which are not friendly to mom, and the pictures. Mom lost the election on April 3, 2001, and on that same day wrote a complaint to the Board of Bar Overseers about me publishing the pleadings and photos. In April, 2001, the child's attorney wrote to me what I perceived to be a nasty letter. I answered her on April 17th, saying it would be a pleasure to receive a letter which did not contain a threat. On April 20th she, too, reported me to the Bar.
At the same time, she brought, in Juvenile Court, a motion to impound documents I had and to remove files from my website. Judge Lawton of that court issued an exparte motion. See Drano Series #34. I wrote Judge Lawton. Below is the letter.
Then mom's attorney got into the act in May 2001. Mom wanted an increase in child support. There was not proper service and Jim did not learn about it until some time in June. I wrote Register Peck of the Bristol County P&F Court and said if he were to assign a judge to the case and if the judge made a decision in Jim's absence, the judge would be acting outside of his authority and I would not hesitate to sue him or or her. Immunity does NOT play against a backdrop of "no jurisdiction."
Next, mom's attorney wrote Justices Grace and Dunphy to have them assign a judge in the Juvenile Court. I wrote them. See Drano Series #42.
Justices Grace and Dunphy then deferred to Chief Justice for the Administration and Management of the Trial Court Barbara A. Dortch-Okara. There next, apparently, was some communication between mom's attorney and Judge Dortch-Okara. I wrote her a letter, which appears in Drano Series #43.
The purpose of the letter to stop her from assigning the case to another Juvenile Court judge. I want everything above-board . . . and no closed courtrooms.
Barbara C. Johnson
Attorney at Law
6 Appletree Lane
Andover, MA 01810-4102
978-474-0833 FAX 978-474-1833
barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net
24 June 2001, Sunday
Honorable Martha P. Grace BY FAX: 617-788-8965
Chief Justice, EMAIL and
Juvenile Court Department FIRST-CLASS MAIL
P.O. Box 9664
Boston, MA 02114-9664Honorable Sean M. Dunphy BY FAX: 617-720-4122
Chief Justice EMAIL and
Probate & Family Court Department FIRST-CLASS MAIL
P.O. Box 9666
Boston, MA 02114-9666Re: Letter from BBBBBBBBBBB, Esq., to both Chief Justices,
dated 20 June 2001, and regarding the following actions:
James Linnehan v. Robyn L. (Gerry) Sylvia
Bristol County Probate & Family Court Docket No. 88W0113-P1
Care and Protection of Brenden Linnehan
Bristol County Juvenile Court CP-99-00018Dear Justices Grace and Dunphy:
Good day, Your Honors.
Judge Grace, we met once in a court outside Worcester. It was
pleasant. You were reasonable and rational and the case against
my client was dismissed. I was impressed. My appearance then
was close to that in the picture on the far-right in a file on my
website: http://www.falseallegations.com/yesteryr.htm.Judge Dunphy, we met face-to-face outside Room 82, where the
Judiciary Committee on March 29th was about to hear from the
public, including a Children's Rights Council panel (of which I
was a member), on a shared parenting bill, S813. I wanted to
schedule a dialogue with you to address substantive issues which
are of utmost concern to the fathers facing discrimination daily
in the family courts. Instead, I heard you denigrate my website:
"It's nasty," you said. That remark was counterproductive.
For tunately, however, from the thousands of weekly visitors, I have
received thanks and testimonials and have heard sentiments
generally diametrically opposed to yours. So I shall remain
stalwart and continue to hope that you and I shall someday have a
more productive encounter.With my prefatory remarks made, I turn now to the substance of
Attorney BBBBB's letter to you. My client opposes vigorously
either the consolidation or an Interdepartmental Judicial Assign-
ment of the two above-cited actions for the reasons -- from the
general to the specific -- below.(1) Nothing but confusion and disgraceful court practices -- by
the nonadherence to the rules of procedure or of evidence -- oc-
curred when the two cases were heard by Judge Harper, who was al-
lowed to wear two hats and sit in both courts. Confusion arose
then, and it continues today.(2) Judge McGregor's ruling, too, last summer was violative of
existing law, to wit, that all future proceedings are to occur in
Juvenile Court. That ruling is being appealed to an appellate
panel. I beseech both of you to read Linnehan's pleadings, par-
ticularly the brief I filed on his behalf in the single-justice
session of the Appeals Court.There I argued, amongst other issues, that the Juvenile Court
does not have the power to rule on an issue of custody between
private parties, and as such any and all existing orders from
Juvenile Court were in error. Cf. Adoption of Paula, 420 Mass.
716, 733 n. 18. Assignment of Linnehan's paternity and custody
case to the Juvenile Court would be no less an error today, for
the law is clear: at all times relevant to his paternity and cus-
tody case, the Probate & Family Court has had exclusive jurisdic-
tion pursuant to G.L. c. 209C, ss. 3 and 20.The single justice did not disagree; he simply wrote that the ap-
peal should be heard by a panel. (I had filed two notices of ap-
peal -- one of an interlocutory appeal and one of a final appeal
-- since it was unclear whether the Probate & Family Court would
treat Judge McGregor's decision as an interlocutory or a final
judgment, given that Linnehan's Amended Complaint for Modifica-
tion was still alive and well.)(3) Docket entry #83 shows that a summons was returned with
Notice of Service. (a) The service was improper as it was
neither left at my client's "last and usual" nor given to him in
HAND, as attested and certified to by Kenneth E. Arsenault, a
constable or process server [he refers to himself as both].
James Linnehan was not at home on 18 May 2001 at 1:18 P.M., the
date on and time at which the improper Complaint was alleged to
have been served. This was gutter service. I thought it had
gone out of style. Apparently it hasn't.(b) Robyn's Complaint was also not signed by BBBBB. I phoned him
about both the improper service and the absence of his signature.
BBBBB claimed he does not have to serve a signed Complaint.
Given that Rule 11 requires due diligence and I have a right to
use a signed Complaint for impeachment purposes, I do not recog-
nize an unsigned Complaint as a valid one. On June 17th, I wrote
Register Peck about the problems. I have not received a response
from him . . . and if the docket sheet is to be believed, there
was no correction made to reflect my letter.Given also the unusual procedures in the Probate & Family Court
at New Bedford, I had no confidence that filing a motion to dis-
miss Robyn's alleged Complaint would be anything other than
futile, so I did not file one. The "law does not require the
doing of a useless act." Loomer v. Dionne, 338 Mass. 348, 353
(1959), citing Mowry's Case, 112 Mass. 394, 400, and Schayer v.
Commonwealth Loan Co., 163 Mass. 322, 323-324.Should a judgment of increased support enter against my client's
interest, I shall move to vacate the judgment because the court
had not acquired jurisdiction over him. Farley v. Sprague, 374
Mass. 419, 420 (1978) (a judgment based upon improper service of
process is void as a matter of law).(4) There has been apparently a petition filed recently in
Juvenile Court. A summons did eventually reach my client, but
there was no petition attached and First Assistant Clerk Gregory
Centeio refuses to serve one on my client or send one to me un-
less I make an appearance in Juvenile Court, something I refuse
to do. Show me an attorney who will sign on to a case before he
sees the Complaint or Petition! I'm uninterested in participat-
ing in unlawful games and tricks. Centeio's position is more
than repugnant.It is also unclear from the summons whether the as-yet-unseen
petition is for a care and protection or a CHINS case.Thus it appears that Linnehan's Amended Complaint for Modifica-
tion [Paper #55] is the only operative pleading, despite BBBBB's
earlier assertion to the contrary, and that issue will be addressed
in the appeal.Frankly, I envision considerable appellate activity over a period
of years before any hearing will take place in either of your
court departments. The child might be in his majority and the
issues moot by the time the appeals are decided, but the issues
are capable of repetition and evading review, so the appeals just
might make it all the way. Whether the proposed assignment to a
Juvenile Court judge of a case of which exclusive jurisdiction
rests with the Probate & Family Court will be appealed has not
yet been considered.(5) Moreover, I anticipate that we shall be challenging the
child-support guidelines on the grounds that the factors to be
considered when determining applicability or payment are insuffi-
cient to afford noncustodial parents equal protection. Denying a
father visitation without a hearing and then expecting him to pay
child support (which Linnehan has done for the thirteen years he
has not seen his child) is the ultimate of offensiveness.Your Honors should advise the Guideline Committee to consider in-
serting a provision in the guideline principles to accommodate
the situation where a noncustodial parent has been deprived of a
relationship with his child. Cf. Agg v. Flanagan, 855 F.2d 336,
339 (1988). Such a provision would relieve some of the tension
in the streets, as well as in the courtrooms.Highlighting the egregiousness of denying Linnehan visitation for
so many years is that in the thirteen years since the inception
of both of the cases, Linnehan was never given an opportunity in
either the family court or the juvenile court to cross-examine
his accusers or to rebut any adverse materials or to present his
evidence . . . for no hearing (read, a proceeding at which
evidence is taken) was ever had in either court.Sadly, Linnehan's plight is not dissimilar to those of many of
the other men demonstrating around the Commonwealth.So . . . given that due process was as extinct in those courts as
the dinosaurs are on this planet, we should all be wondering
about now, Why does Johnson care, then, where future proceedings
and, with luck, hearings, are held? Well, Johnson cares because
she wants a public hearing for her client, not one about which
only the opposition, the court, and the visiting court-house ter-
mites will know. That closed, scrutiny-free Juvenile Court sys-
tem shamefully tied the hands of all six of Linnehan's prior
counsel.As a result, James Linnehan and I and countless other noncus-
todial fathers who have had no visitation for years want the
public to know what a court of this Commonwealth now intends to
do . . . or not do . . . about providing some kind of remedy for
horrendous wrongs.Thank you for your attention. Hoping that some day the America I
pledged allegiance to as a schoolchild shall re-emerge, I remain,Barbara C. Johnson
cc: Opposing counsel BBBBB
James Linnehan
drano-footer
A word about the Google ads being added to this site
Sooooo . . . not only can the few dollars from the ads pay for the expenses of this website, you, too, can also benefit: you can learn on your own which attorneys and which self-help groups in those areas of the law are available to help you.
Hoping that the ads will give you sufficient information to satisfy your requests for recommendations and referrals, I have been reformatting the files on this website to accommodate the maximum number of ads that Google's policy allows per file.
By the way, I have no control over which ads appear. They are chosen by Google according to the content -- I think -- in each file.
HELP: Any HTML programmer know how to get rid of the extra <> below the Google ads at the top of the files and the <> in the upper right-hand corners of the Google ads on the right-hand side of the screen? i've wasted hours, if not days, trying to figure out WHY they are there in some files and not in others . . . and how to get rid of them. THANKS!!
Barbara C. Johnson, Attorney at Law
6 Appletree Lane, Andover, Massachusetts 01810-4102 Phone 978-474-0833