#81, Drano Series
Barb's Second Response to the Complaint by Robyn
(mother of Jim Linnehan's child)
to the
Board of Bar Overseers
Office of the Bar CounselA Battle in the War between Barb
and
the Office of Bar Counsel of the Board of Bar Overseers
The first question the Bar Counsel had was whether I had contacted Robyn.
Rule: If a person is represented by counsel, a lawyer would violate an ethics rule were he or she to contact the person.The second question the Bar Counsel had was whether I had published on my website any material which I knew to be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected.
After I wrote the first all-in-one response (in May) to the three-in-one Complaint to the Bar, a staff attorney requested that I answer them separately. Because of privacy concerns by the Bar, they did not want Robyn and the attorneys to know my response to each of them.
So on 26 June 2001, I responsed separately to Robyn's and to Wolf's complaints. Each contained additions where appropriate.I wrote still another response to the Bar, 29 June 2001. It included some important points that had not been raised by the complainants, Robyn and Wolf.
Finally, I re-responded to the Bar on 30 June 2001.
Barbara C. Johnson
Attorney at Law
6 Appletree Lane
Andover, MA 01810-4102
PHONE 978-474-0833 FAX 978-xxx-xxxx
email: barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net
website: http://falseallegations.com
26 June 2001
Susan Strauss Weisberg
Assistant Bar Counsel
Office of the Bar Counsel
75 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110Re: BBO File No. B2-00-0090 (Robyn L. Gerry-Sylvia)
Dear Attorney Weisberg:
I have scanned in to the computer the two letters by Robyn Gerry-Sylvia -- one dated 29 April 2001 and not addressed to any particular person and the other Attorney Luke -- and have reproduced them here in 10-point sans serif type. Ditto for those by Bruce Lider ["Lider"]. My own remarks in response to Robyn, I have put in 12-point type.
To save time, I shall not respond to what appears to be Robyn's emotional statements or to her opinions of me or to totem-pole hearsay. She is, after all, entitled to think whatever she wants of me.
Robyn Gerry-Sylvia's letter dated 29 April 2001
I am writing to report Attorney Barbara Johnson to you for what I believe to be serious unethical practices. The circumstances of my call to Robyn are set out in my answer to your first question. I vehemently deny that I tried to discuss legal issues with her or that I tried to convince her that she had to discuss them with me. Please read the copy of the Amended Complaint for Modification Pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 15(a), [Drano Series #22] which you received from Robyn and which I filed in Bristol County Probate & Family Court. I included another copy of that pleading for you, one in which the "links" to other pleadings were darker and printed out more legibly than the one she sent you.Attorney Johnson has called my home (when I have counsel of record) and has tried to convince me that I have to discuss my legal issues with her due to my not having counsel! Please review the enclosed.
It points out in excruciating detail all the outright lies which Robyn told to each person. Clearly, she has historically changed the facts of events to suit her particular needs at any given moment.
She has a pattern of accusing people -- literally abusing process -- to suit her personal agenda. Please find enclosed an article entitled "No charges from recall fallout" published in the Standard Times on 27 February 2001. Robyn brought false charges against a Fairhaven school committee chairwoman which after considerable investigation were dropped by Special Assistant District Attorney Brian Sullivan.
Attorney Johnson, in conjunction with Attorney Cccccccccc, did falsley [sic] state to the court that I had made reports to the DSS, which I did not.
Robyn's divorce file revealed the DSS worker's name to be Catherine Thomas. See footnote 4 of that Amended Complaint. She is no longer working for DSS, but she is a licensed social worker living in the New Bedford area.Cccccccccc, is the divorce lawyer for Michael Sylvia, Robyn's husband.
I am beside myself to find that attorney Johnson now has a website where she posts information from a Care and Protection suit that involved my son, Ssssss Linnehan (who now goes by the name of Ssssss Yyy). My son, Ssssss has been devastated by this. He was found in need of Care and Protection many years ago, and since I have been plagued with litigation that has only supported the fact that my son is in need of protection
I have never posted any pleadings from the Juvenile Court case. I have, however, posted pleadings filed in Probate & Family Court and in U.S. District Court and in those pleadings I have commented on the process, or lack thereof, in the Juvenile Court -- to wit, that because there was never an evidentiary hearing in Juvenile Court or Probate & Family Court, James Linnehan was never given the opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses against him or rebut any adverse materials. and was thus denied his constitutional entitlement to due process. This is exactly the type of judicial unscrupulousness our high court hopes the public spotlight will cure.In the Probate & Family Court and U.S. District Court pleadings, where I have quoted here and there a few words or a sentence from a report, I have cited the source of the quote. Only Christopher Salt's reports were, I believe, filed in Juvenile Court. The stipulation to use Eli Newberger was under a Probate & Family Court caption and according to the salutation on the letter, Newberger's report itself was sent to Deborah Wolf, not the court. Some confusion arises from the fact that the two cases, although not consolidated, were assigned to be heard by one judge whose primary hat was in Juvenile Court.
I have no personal knowledge as to Ssssss's position in the issues Robyn has raised. I have no personal knowledge whether Robyn has been plagued with litigation beyond the litigation she herself caused by accusing both James Linnehan and later her husband, Michael Sylvia, of sexual abuse of the children. She birthed two of them. Her husband is a widower who came to his marriage with Robyn with two children by his deceased wife.
Any parent who would post (or allow such postings) certainly could not have a child's best interest in mind. Any attorney who would behave as Barbara Johnson (aided by Cccccccccc) is certainly a discredit to the Bar.
Robyn is entitled to her opinion. I have never met Cccccccccc. She did phone me at least once in mid-2000. Cccccccccc has nothing to do with my website.
The courtroom behavior of Johnson is outrageous, but this matter is unconcionable [sic]. My child needs to be protected, and no person should be subject to this lack of professionalism.
Robyn has never witnessed me being outrageous. I have enclosed a single-spaced version (to reduce the thickness of the attachment) of the transcript of the hearing last August, which supports my contention that my courtroom behavior was perfectly professional. I'm sure that if the judge thought me unreasonable, the judge would have reported me to the Bar. This did not happen because I had the proper demeanor in court.
I have twelve years of documentation to prove that Mr. Linnehan is indeed a preditor [sic], when will this abuse stop? This website is an indication of the character (lack of) in both Johnson and her client's case.
Robyn is entitled to her opinion. That documentation is the basis for the U.S. District Court case.Ms. Johnson called me (at my home) sounding under the influence of something, as she slurred her words and was very hostile. She insisted that I speak with her. I am considering this and the other behaviors (sending this website to my child at school) as well as the posting of protected juvenile documents on the internet to be glaring in lack of ethical or moral fiberI don't drink any alcoholic beverages as a rule. On occasion when out for dinner with friends, I shall have some wine with dinner.I do not use foul language in a courthouse. Nor do I yell in a courthouse. If I were to do or to have done that, I'm sure some judge would not have waited for Robyn Gerry-Sylvia to inform you.
As to phoning Robyn: After the attorney whom I thought was Robyn Gerry-Sylvia's attorney (Bruce Lider) said that he had not yet been retained to represent her anew, and that he would not accept service for her of a Complaint for Modification of Custody, my client and I began a search for Robyn Sylvia (the name we believed she was still using).
From one of the local city halls, we got the address for a Robyn Sylvia and caused service to be made. Within a few days, I was contacted and told this was a namesake and not "our" Robyn Sylvia.
That began another hunt, primarily by calling telephone information for the towns surrounding North Dartmouth and New Bedford. In that area, the surname "Sylvia" is as common as "Johnson." One day I was given the number for a Robyn Sylvia and before I wasted more money for the Sheriff, I called the number to confirm it was our Robyn. In words for all intents and purposes, I said, "I'm not sure I have the correct Robyn Sylvia. Is your maiden name "Gerry"?
She confirmed she was and was pleasant for the next few fleeting moments. I think she thought she had won a prize . . . until I answered her question by giving my name and identifying myself as James Linnehan's attorney. She then immediately hung up.
I then filled out a new summons and caused the Sheriff to serve it and the Complaint at the address in Fairhaven.
The second and last time I telephoned Robyn is after Attorney Bruce Lider denied that he was Robyn's counsel and I needed her agreement as to who would transcribe the tape of the August 2000 hearing (the one I've included with this answer). The phonecall is explained in my statement filed pursuant to Mass.R.A.P. 8(b)(3) and 9(c)(2), namely,
(STATEMENT CERTIFYING THAT APPELLANT RECEIVED CASSETTE ON 12/29/00 AND SHALL ORDER TRANSCRIPT EITHER WHEN AGREEMENT AS TO TRANSCRIBER IS REACHED WITH OPPOSING PARTY, OR WHEN COURT ASSIGNS REPORTER TO TRANSCRIBE
The statement was sent to the Bar with my first letter to you.I have no recollection of sending materials from my website anywhere off the Internet. It's not something I would do, for it makes no sense: if someone wants a file from my website, all he or she has to do is download or print it. I certainly never sent materials to any child including Ssssss at school.
Attornies [sic] Lider and Wolfe have great concerns as well. Please contact them for their input. Bruce Lider (508-992-2200) Deborah Wolfe (508) 990-0094
Please contact me at 508-999-6099.
Thank you,
Robyn L. Gerry-Sylvia
No response is needed to the above paragraphs.* * * * *
Robyn's letter to Attorney Luke:
Dear Attorney Luke,Please find the enclosed letter from Bruce Lider. I am writing to file a formal complaint against Attorney Barbara Johnson, and as previously mentioned, Attorney DeNardis, who falsely alleged in an affidavit to the court that I had accused Mr. Sylvia of molesting our children.
It appears that Robyn in also accusing Attorney Cccccccccc of writing an affidavit to a court about Robyn's false allegations. It is more appropriate for Attorney Cccccccccc to address this issue than for me.
This slanderous statement now appears on a web site that solicits business for Attorney Barbara Johnson. This web site posts protected juvenile documents, and Ms. Johnson has been e-mailing this to citizens of Fairhaven in particular.
It would be more helpful if Robyn identified the statement which she believes is slanderous. I suspect that any statement of which she complains is in the Amended Complaint for Modification, for it is there where I pointed out many -- not all, but many -- of her lies and identified the documents in which the proof of her falsehoods was. She opposed the court going forward on that Amended Complaint. (See the enclosed transcript of that 11 August 2000 hearing in New Bedford Probate & Family Court.)
I have never seen such an abomination of the justice system. Mr. Linnehan was adjudicated and every court has upheld the Care and Protection. For Johnson to post this on the internet and Cccccccccc to collaborate with her is truly beyond the realm of ethics.
See, supra, my citations on publicity being something the high court in this Commonwealth advocates. I do not know what Robyn means by "this."
I will be more than happy to provide you with the juvenile court documentation through Bruce Lider who has overseen this case for 12 years. This site has caused an incredible amount of pain to my son and to my entire family. I believe the intent to be very malicious.
I never knew James Linnehan while the Juvenile Court case was open and active. I never filed an appearance in that case. I've never even been in New Bedford Juvenile Court. In my humble opinion, if she was caused pain, she brought it on herself.
There are several other cases outlined there as well. No child should have private information divulged in such a manner. Why bother to keep juvenile court private, if someone can simply take the information and post it this way. Several of my child's teachers have called me in outrage to this. I did not realize that such a site existed until recently. This needs to be stopped.
Robyn should have thought first before both conceiving two children and birthing one of them out of wedlock. Ssssss's birth out of wedlock was not before Juvenile Court. Only the issue of whether the child needed protection from James Linnehan was before that court. At that time, she claimed there were no other men near Ssssss. That we know is not true.
If this is allowed to continue, it simply advocates for future abuse. This is abuse. I cannot believe that an attorney could possibly go this far to solicit business. One of my goals is to effect reform of court procedures which are an anathema to our supposedly lofty system of justice. Never has the solicitation of business been my goal with the website. My original goal was to give free to the public information which many could not afford and which was necessary for their defense against false allegations. It was only through the overwhelming favorable response to the website worldwide that I learned how widespread and how insidious was the lack of due process in these cases . . . and it is that knowledge which resulted in my taking a few cases before I fully retire . . . cases which could conceivably have a curative impact on the woes of the thousands upon thousands of victims of a justice system gone awry.Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Robyn L Gerry-Sylvia
P.S. Please add Attorney Xxxxxxxxxxx to this complaint, as he did publicly make mention of this web site and I have a copy of the videotape in which he mentioned this in a public forum to attempt discredit me personally. As an attorney, he should have known better. This behavior is not ethical and should be addressed.
I have no knowledge of what Attorney Xxxxxxxxxxx said publicly.* * * * *
Bruce Lider's letter to Mr. Hanna: Compare Lider's assertions in his letter to his assertions to Judge McGregor in the accompanying transcript. One minute he represented her and was counsel of record; the next, not. In his Response to Plaintiff/Appellant's Certification of December 30, 2000, he complained to the court of my certification (sent you with my first letter to you).
* * * * *
The First Amendment is broad as is the caselaw in Massachusetts. My website as a whole has several purposes. I set them out below.
I have uploaded many public documents. The reason is twofold. The first, to exercise my First Amendment right to speak out when I believe it will benefit our society. The second, to provide free samples of different types of pleadings for use by the, literally, hundreds of thousands of people financially unable to retain competent legal representation and suffering piteously across the country at the hands of the system in two areas of law: in domestic-relations cases and child-protective-services cases.
In domestic relations cases, the bias in favor of women to the detriment of children and their fathers is pandemic. The Linnehan case is one of these. At no time has he been allowed the opportunity to confront his accusers and/or to rebut any adverse materials against him. And there never has been an intention of harming his child. I weep for that child. He has been denied having any father at all. That is an unforgivable shame. I forgive neither Robyn nor the courts for that tragedy. Neither shall I be silenced silently.
In DSS, DHS, CPS cases, the danger to families -- including women -- by the so-called child protection agencies across the nation is equally as dangerous. Children are being removed from homes by these agencies, which are receiving tens of thousands of dollars annually for each child being removed, and then the children are being put up for adoption without proof of unfitness or consent of the parents.
Both of these legal realms are leading to the destruction of family and/or familial relationships. Together they are America's Secret Holocaust, which is now coming into its teenage-hood at the turn of this millenium. It is a disastrous continuing event and by some unexpected twists and turns, I've become caught up in fighting it.
Sincerely,
Barbara C. Johnson
cc: James Linnehan