#44, Drano Series
Reply to Child's Attorney's Letter 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 this father and son about whom I had been writing.
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. Three days later, 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
ex parte 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 in Drano Series #43.
The purpose of these letters 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.net7 July 2001, Saturday
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: Letter from DDDDDDD, Esq., to the three Chief Justices,
dated 5 July 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:
In her latest letter, dated July 5th, a day after a holiday commemorating our country's honorable history, DDDDDDD chose thrice to desecrate her precious constitutional liberty interest by lying to Your Honorable Justices: to wit, she wrote, "These matters were last consolidated in 1991 and assigned to Judge Ronald D. Harper. . . . Attorney BBBBB requested [in his May 4th letter] that a Judge be appoint [sic] to replace Judge Harper in the consolidated petitions. . . . I support the request by Attorney BBBBB that the Juvenile and Probate Court matters remain consolidated. . . ." [Emphasis supplied.]
Please see the attachment to this letter: a memo, dated 10 October 1991, from Arthur M. Mason, Chief Administrative Justice to Justices Mary C. Fitzpatrick and Francis G. Poitrast, re the above-cited actions. It reads: "The matters remain separate actions pending in different Departments of the Trial Court, and as such, findings, as may be appropriate, as well as judgments, are required in each action."
Clearly, the two actions, one in Juvenile Court and the other in Probate & Family Court, were never consolidated.
Further, although, much to my dismay, the rules of evidence are rarely followed in either court department, the rules and jurisdiction and authorities differ in the two departments and it is highly unlikely that a judge sitting in Juvenile Court has the requisite familiarity with the rules, jurisdiction, and authorities of the Probate & Family Court.
Even the environments differ: the Juvenile Court has closed sessions and although the Probate & Family Court in its very recent history has routinely closed its proceedings to the public, it is required there that "a judge presiding over civil matters should follow the procedure set forth in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 379 Mass. 846, 864-865 (1980) and Boston Herald, Inc. v. Superior Court Department of the Trial Court. 421 Mass. 502, 506 (1995), before ordering closure." Gouin v. Gouin, et al, No. SJ-2001-0278 (July 6, 2001) (Spina J.) "It has been suggested that public access to civil trials is established under the common law." Id.
Linnehan insists that his case be heard in an open proceeding in Probate & Family Court, which has according to M.G.L. c. 209C, s. 3, exclusive jurisdiction over paternity and custody actions.
As to DDDDDDD's alleged re-appointment to file an appellate brief in 2001: it would be helpful to receive a copy of that appointment. It appears that that new appointment makes my point: that DDDDDDD needed an appointment to act as the minor child's counsel in Probate & Family Court, a court from which she never received an appointment.
Given that DDDDDDD so blithely lied three times in a succinct letter, I remain adamant in my request that the CJAM's office cause an audit of DDDDDDD's accounts with CPCS since 1991. Has she lied there too? That is the question!
I trust that the CJAM's office will do justice.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Barbara C. Johnson
cc: Opposing counsel BBBBB
Opposing counsel DDDDDDD
James Linnehan