#43, Drano Series
Letters to
Chief Justice of
Administration & Management
Barbara A. Dortch-Okara,
Trial Court,
Chief Judge Martha P. Grace,
Juvenile Court,
and
Chief Judge Sean M. Dunphy,
Probate & Family Court*
On 9 July 2001, Justice Dortch-Okara, by denying opposing counsel's request for transfer to Juvenile Court,
gave Jim Linnehan his first step to justice
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. See Drano Series #37.
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 below in Drano Series #43.
The purpose of the letter is 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.net1 July 2001, Sunday
Honorable Barbara A. Dortch-Okara BY FAX: 617-742-0968
Chief Justice for Administration EMAIL
& Management FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Trial Court
2 Center Plaza, Suite 540
Boston, MA 02108Honorable 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: Letters from BBBBB, Esq., to the three Chief Justices, dated 4 May 2001 and 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-99-00018
Dear Justices Dortch-Okara, Grace and Dunphy:
MMMMMMM of your office, Judge Dortch-Okara, was gracious enough to send me Attorney BBBBB's letter of May 4th to Judges Grace and Dunphy, a letter which I had not received for whatever reason.
As a result of becoming current on what he is requesting, I have the following information to add in support of my client's vigorous opposition to either the consolidation or an Inter-
departmental Judicial Assignment of the two above-cited actions.(1) There is no pending action in the Juvenile Court and there is no pending action in the Probate & Family Court.
(2) The mother's complaint for modification for increase in support [Paper 82] was not properly served, as I noted in some detail in my letter of June 24th to Judges Grace and Dunphy. The abridged version is as follows:
(a) the service was not in HAND as the server certified [Paper 83],Should a judgment of increased support enter against my client's interest in his absence, due to lack of service, I shall move to vacate the judgment because the court had not acquired jurisdic- tion 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).(b) upon information and belief, the server was not authorized to serve in Essex County, and
(c) the rain-soaked-and-crumpled complaint for modification was UNsigned.
Further, any judge who would be assigned and allow Robyn Gerry-Sylvia's complaint for modification would be acting outside his or her authority -- having no jurisdiction. Taking judicial action where there is no jurisdiction to act leaves the acting judge outside the penumbra of absolute immunity and at risk of suit for money damages in his or her individual capacity.
(3) Further, Attorney BBBBB chose to file in the Probate & Family Court the mother's complaint for modification for increased support from a man wrongfully and unlawfully denied both custody of and visitation [sic, parenting time] with his son for 13 years. Since he chose the Probate & Family Court, there is no reason for him to request to send the 209C complaint for modification to the Juvenile Court. If he believed Juvenile court was the proper court to hear the matter, why did he not file it there?
(4) As to BBBBB's letter of May 4th to Judges Grace and Dunphy:
(a) Of course, I gave no assent to BBBBB's request for transfer of a non-existent action to Juvenile Court. But for Attorney MMMMMMMM's graciousness, I would never have received the letter containing the request . . .(5) More about the status of the action in Probate & Family Court: I have appealed the dismissal of Linnehan's Complaint for Modification in the Probate & Family Court [Papers 52 and 70]. I am awaiting and Notice of Assembly of the appeal. The motion judge (McGregor, J.) had deemed the Amended Complaint [Paper 55] not served, although it clearly had been pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 15(a). That, too, might be appealed. I could re-serve the Amended Complaint for Modification, but Judge McGregor ordered that all future proceedings would take place in Juvenile court, so re-serving the amended complaint would not solve my problem. Judge McGregor's order is reversible error on its face:
despite the "cc:" which asserts that it was sent to me,(b) expense is not a valid reason to transfer a case from one court to another,
(c) BBBBB must be estopped from arguing that "the cases continue as they have for nearly thirteen years." given that BBBBB argued the contrary before Judge McGregor on 11 August 2000,
(d) James Linnehan is not a party to both the P&F and Juvenile Court actions: there are no actions pending, unless his Amended Complaint is deemed active,
(e) rising to the level of a material misrepresentation of fact to your divers trial courts is BBBBB's assertion that he continues to be Robyn Gerry-Sylvia's attorney when there is no action pending: he argued the contrary before McGregor on 11 August 2000,and
(f) I am absolutely and never have been counsel of record for James Linnehan in any Juvenile Court case, and
(g) DDDDDDD has never been appointed as attorney for the child in Linnehan's Probate & Family Court action and has likely fraudulently billed public counsel (CPCS or some other court-fund account) for the rendering of
private services in that court,(h) DDDDDDD was never re-appointed as attorney for the child -- since 1991 -- in any of the re-openings of the Juvenile Court action and has likelu fraudulently billed public counsel (CPCS or some other court-fund account) for the rendering of private services in Juvenile Court,
(i) DDDDDDD was never appointed to bring a private action on behalf of the child and/or of the mother in Juvenile Court,
(j) DDDDDDD's minor client never had standing in Linnehan's Probate & Family Court to bring a Motion to Dismiss. Judge McGregor committed reversible error by allowing it. And DDDDDDD indulged in clearly unethical
conduct by billing the Commonwealth for her alleged services, and(k) in fact, the original appointment of DDDDDDD as the minor client's attorney was unlawful in that there was no statutory support for the appointment: that is,
(i) section 29 of chapter 119 does not apply to the type of care and protection case involved here, for the Care and Protection of Brenden Linnehan in Juvenile Court was never an adoption, a foster-care, or a commitment case, and(l) the smokescreen from BBBBB's bag of tricks is the type "slick" behavior Appeals Court Judge Brown abhors: namely, by sending his transfer request to Attorney GGGGGGG,1 BBBBB tried to create the wrongful impression that Linnehan has representation in a Juvenile Court matter, when, in fact, Linnehan absolutely does not have representation in any Juvenile Court matter . . . and, in fact, Linnehan has not in many years been served with process for any action in Juvenile Court.(ii) there never was the means test required by that section of Brenden's mother, Robyn, and, lastly,
1 GGGGGGG retired from the practice of law several years ago, no longer lives in Massachusetts, and had no obligation to file a notice of withdrawal once the Juvenile Court case was last closed.
that order violates G.L. c. 209C, sec. 3, which gives exclusive jurisdiction of "paternity and custody" actions to the P&F court.(6) A similar situation exists in Juvenile Court: If I am to believe two papers2 which took fortuitous but circuitous paths to my client, I can assume that "someone" is contending that
there has been a petition filed recently in Juvenile Court. That court's docket sheets, however, do not support that assumption or contention; they show that everything is closed. My client has not seen the petition or complaint which the summons said was attached. I have not seen the petition or complaint. And a colleague of mine, too, who made a good-faith effort to get a copy of the alleged pleading has not seen the petition or complaint.2 One, a summons with no attached petition and sent out authority-less by the clerk on his own, and the other, a trial-witness subpoena also sent by the clerk on his own. Neither of which may be deemed served.Details of parts of this scenario, also, are in my letter of June 24th. To require any attorney to file an appearance BEFORE the Complaint or Petition is even served boggles my mind.* * * * *
As I inferred last week, I shall not sit passively watching anyone involved in the judicial system playing unlawful games and tricks. I have too much respect for the Law to be numbed into a failure to act to correct the repugnant situation.
It would do much to restore my faith in the system, if you were to institute an internal investigation of DDDDDDD's financial dealings with the Commonwealth.
A similar investigation should also be done of BBBBB's financial dealings with the Commonwealth. He was originally court-appointed to represent the mother in Juvenile Court in 1988. No re-appointment appears on the docket sheet. Nor does any affidavit of indigency for Robyn L. Gerry (maiden name) or Robyn L. Sylvia (married name), or Robyn Gerry-Sylvia (hyphenated name assumed pending divorce) appear on the docket sheets in
either Juvenile Court or Probate & Family Court.3 So the question becomes, Have BBBBB's services been paid for by Robyn or by the Commonwealth?3 Robyn's husband is quite well to do and pays her handsome child support in addition to that she receives from Linnehan . . . in addition to her own earnings, which upon information and belief might be ___________ earnings for her work as a housekeeper. Upon information and belief, her divorce, which was brought in 1994, is still ongoing in New Bedford Probate & Family Court.
Thank you for your attention.Sincerely,
Barbara C. Johnsoncc: Opposing counsel BBBBB
Opposing counsel DDDDDDD
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