Barb's Second Response to the Complaint by Deborah D. Wolf  (the child's Juvenile-Court-appointed attorney) to the  Board of Bar Overseers  Office of the Bar Counsel A 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. * * * * * Some important points that had not been raised or admitted by the complainants, Robyn and Wolf, are set out below this letter.

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 02110 Re: BBO File No. C2-00-0091 (Deborah Wolf) Dear Attorney Weisberg:  I have scanned in to the computer Deborah Wolf's letter and have reproduced it here in 10-point sans seriftype. My own remarks in response to Deborah's, I have put in 12-point type.  April 20, 2001 Board of Bar Overseers 75 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 RE: Complaint by Sssss Linnehan I wrote Wolf a letter [Exh. A] on 17 April 2001. Clearly her letter to the Bar, rather than a response to me, was retaliatory.            Dear Sir: Please be informed that I have been appointed by the Bristol County Juvenile Court in a Care and Protection and the Bristol County Probate Court in related matters to represent a minor child, Sssss Linnehan. This litigation dates back to 1988, and Sssss is now 16 years old. I was appointed as Sssss's second attorney in October 1991.  Wolf was appointed in 1991 to represent Sssss in the Care and Protection case in Juvenile Court: Docket No: 8800018. The docket sheet shows that that appointment was never renewed.  In my opinion a Care and Protection ["C&P"] action closes when adoption, commitment to DSS or foster care, or custody is determined and it is re-opened when a parent brings a "review and redetermination" pursuant to c. 119, sec. 26. The statute is silent on the subject of closing. At a later date, Wolf represented the child in James Linnehan's action for paternity and custody in Probate & Family Court: Docket No: 88W0113-P1. Wolf did this without getting appointed in the P&FC.  Similarly, Wolf signed a Verified Complaint (which resulted in an "Equity Citation," entered as Docket No: 01E0001, filed in Juvenile Court). In it, she appears to be representing Robyn Gerry-Sylvia as well as Sssss Linnehan. I have also seen no appointment of Wolf for Robyn or for Sssss in this case. On 29 May 2001 I wrote to Judge Lawton, who issued the Citation; the letter is attached here as Exh. B and is self-explanatory.  Recently I have met with Sssss concerning the recent dissemination of juvenile court material on internet within his local town of Fairhaven. Attorney Barbara Johnson, 6 Appletree Lane, Andover, MA 01810, represents Sssss's father, James Linnehan. When did Wolf meet with Sssss? Was Robyn present? For how long was the meeting? Last year, the first time I met Wolf, she admitted she had NOT spoken to Sssss, although her argument to the court made it appear that she had. Clearly her information was from Robyn. Attorney Barbara Johnson markets her legal services through a website called falseallegations. I am a publisher of legal information and opinion provided free to people on the web. 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.  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. In domestic relations cases, in particular, 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 needlessly denied having any father at all. That is an unforgivable shame. I forgive neither Robyn nor Wolf nor the courts for that tragedy. And I shall not be silenced silently in voicing my opposition to the forces which have brought about this tragedy. On this website, Attorney Johnson has targeted Sssss by name, calling him "born out of wedlock" and quoting privileged and confidential material concerning evaluations and court investigation in the juvenile court record. At one time, I did have the words "out-of-wedlock mom" in my directory. When it was called to my attention, I removed the words "out-of-wedlock." I also used the expression "born out of wedlock" in two memoranda in support of Linnehan's opposition to two motions for judgment on the pleadings [Drano ##17 and 21] filed in U.S. District Court. Significant is that the child has not been known and does not go to school as "Sssss Linnehan" but as "Sssss Sylvia." In the pleadings, he is referred to as "Sssss Linnehan" and not "Sssss Sylvia." I did refer once to that fact on the site, but have since also removed that reference. In my opinion, none of the material I have quoted is privileged or confidential. If ever there was privilege, that privilege was waived by Sssss and Robyn when the speaker or writer disseminated the information beyond Sssss or Robyn. In other words, the holder of the privilege cannot publish the information to accomplish his or her personal agenda and then invoke privilege when a third party wants to use or publish it. The moment the alleged privileged material was published outside the so-called counseling session, the privilege was waived. The Standing Orders of the Juvenile Court require that all juvenile court case records and reports are confidential and are not to be further copied or released without permission of the court. Attorney Johnson has quoted directly from the Court Investigator Christopher Salt's reports throughout her website. In addition, she has summarized the contents of the juvenile reports and posted this material on the website. Enclosed are examples of some of her references I have not uploaded to my website any documents from the Juvenile Court case. I have quoted Christopher Salt, but the quotes were not about the child. If Wolf can call attention to the remarks which she wants to censor or remove and to the document(s) in which they are contained, I would appreciate her doing so. Under separate cover I am sending you a list of actual quotes -- those with quotation marks -- and a compilation of where Sssss’s name is used. In each instance in the pleadings where I have quoted from any document, I have given the source of the quote. In most instances, the same quotes are repeatedly used in the opposition pleadings.  As to Wolf's argument that the Standing Order precludes me from quoting or summarizing documents from Juvenile Court: Given that the docket sheet, under the Juvenile Court Standing Order, would be a confidential court record, from where does Wolf derive her authority to copy and distribute the "confidential" docket sheet of the Juvenile Court? During the proceedings, the parties agreed to attend a neutral evaluation at the Family Clinic of Children's Hospital. Three team members, Eli H. Newberger, M.D., Maureen O'Brien, Ph.D., and Merrill Berger, Ph. D., filed a written report with the Juvenile Court. Attorney Johnson quoted portions and summarized the contents of this report on her website. This information is privileged under M.G.L. ch. 233, section 20B and confidential under the standing orders of the juvenile court. First, the report by Dr. Newberger and his team has never been on my website. Second, my client is suing Newberger in federal court because of that report. Third, the Juvenile Court docket which Wolf submitted to you with her letter reveals that there is no entry which memorializes the filing of that report with that court. For that reason, it would not fall under the Standing Orders of the Juvenile Court. Fourth, Newberger's report, in fact, was addressed to Wolf, not the court, and it is she who disseminated it. Fifth, the stipulation of the parties to have Newberger's team was written under the Probate & Family Court caption, not the Juvenile Court caption. That the stipulation ended up on the Juvenile Court docket -- which I saw for the first time when you sent me the newly fabricated Juvenile Court docket sheets -- was, therefore, either a ministerial error by a Juvenile Court clerk or the intentional filing by Wolf of the stipulation in the wrong court clerk's office, to wit, the Juvenile Court clerk's office rather that the Probate & Family Court clerk's office. Sixth, caselaw allows the use of previously impounded documents in a later action on behalf of a client and that the documents to which I've referred or out of which I quoted a phrase or two were never impounded. Therefore, where is Wolf's authority to question my use of them? The Standing Order alone is vague -- for instance, what does "records mean? -- and clearly none of the lawyers, including Deborah Wolf, appears to have returned any papers to Juvenile Court. Some of the parties to the federal case have even attached sundry reports to their pleadings. For example, John McCarthy, who was supposed to have filed reports, did not file any and wrote bills and letters instead; one of which was addressed to "To Whom It May Concern." I attached his bills and letters to an opposition to his Motion to Dismiss. He, on the other hand, attached Eli Newberger's report to his pleading and served it on all parties to the federal lawsuit. It can be assumed that he got his copy from either Deborah Wolf because it was she to whom Newberger sent it.  Not only must Wolf identify both the remarks which she wants censored or removed and the documents in which she alleges they are contained, but she must also state a valid and reasonable basis for her wanting to censor or remove documents from my site. Writing that Sssss was emotionally distressed by seeing himself at the age of one, two, or three in front of a Christmas tree or blowing out candles on a birthday cake or in a Batman costume or in a railroad engineer's cap riding a plastic train strains credibility. Toddler Sssss's mouth looks like he was saying "Choo-choo!" Hardly the kinds of pictures to cause a child to relive past trauma . . . and even more particularly when there is no past trauma to relive. And the court itself must write findings before it issues an order which restricts free speech, and certainly before it issues an ex parte order. Wolf must also cite legal authorities for her proposition that the Juvenile Court is empowered to issue an order justifying the prior restraint, removal, or censorship.  General Laws c. 233, sec. 20B, which Wolf contends protects the report by Newberger's team, applies to psychotherapists and registered nurses. None of the Newberger team falls into those categories. And Newberger is not a psychiatrist. So the Newberger-team report does not fall within the penumbra of 233:20B. In the alternative, even if it did, it would be excepted from the penumbra given that Wolf and/or Robyn has joined the issues. Not only has Attorney Johnson posted without permission privileged and confidential material, but also she has directly targeted Sssss in his local community. Sssss believes that Attorney Johnson and his father was posted this material for the primary purpose of harassment. Under the section dated February 18, Drano series #28, Attorney Johnson identified Sssss by name and town, and refers to Sssss as "out-of-wedlock mom of Jim Linnehan's son". Attorney Johnson posted under Drano Series #28, thirteen (13) pictures of Sssss. These pictures identify him as the child who was sexually abused by his father, James Linnehan. This material has circulated the town of Fairhaven. Sssss was handed this material in school by a classmate two separate times. Paternal cousin, who resides out of state, signed the handed-material, instructing Sssss to telephone him secretly. Sssss is mortified by the dissemination of his privileged material and was unable to attend school for a period of time. Parts of this paragraph have already been addressed above. With that said, the material quoted, as I also said above, is, in my opinion, neither confidential nor privileged.  No one, including myself, ever intended to harass Sssss. The whole point of the posting is to show that Sssss was never sexually abused by his father. And the photos make a simply beautiful record of a happy child with an adoring father and a spectacular, supporting, functional family on his father's side. Look at those pictures. Do you see anyone who appears to have been sexually abused?  I have no knowledge about where the material on my website has circulated.  Until I read the letter you sent me with the complaint package, I had no knowledge of anyone, no less a paternal cousin, writing Sssss. In fact, my client, too, was unaware of the letter having been written and then sent or delivered by a third party. Nevertheless, the letter strikes me as being warm, friendly, considerate, and loving. Only a malicious woman would object to a child knowing his father's caring family.  Sssss Linnehan states that the publication of his picture, the confidential and privileged juvenile court material by Attorney Johnson breaches the canon of ethics. Attorney Johnson has not represented her client James Linnehan within the bounds of the law and the limits of trial publicity. Sssss alleges that Attorney Johnson is disseminating confidential and privileged material in order to sell her legal services. Sssss has no personal knowledge of the canons of ethics. This is a gratuitous comment by Wolf. There has also never been a trial . . . even though there should have been. That's the point! Not only has the judicial system cheated my client, so has the system, Sssss's mother, and his so-called lawyer cheated the child. The conclusions reached by Wolf are simply that, her conclusions. She is entitled to her opinion as I am to mine. That our conclusions are different can be expected. I am a humanist. Sssss is seeking that Attorney Johnson be held responsible for her unethical conduct. He [is] ultimately seeking that the material referencing him, either directly or indirectly, be removed from the internet. Kindly inform my office of the screening decision of Sssss's complaint.  Sincerely, Deborah D. Wolf, Esq. BBO#532-190 Encl. cc: Sssss Linnehan No comment is required on the immediately proceeding paragraphs. I do want to add, however, that Wolf knows that Robyn lost her bid for election to selectman in the Town of Fairhaven and has blamed the loss on my site. Wolf's action in bringing her complaint against me as well as against Cccccccccc, the lawyer for Robyn's husband, makes it clear that Wolf is acting as a cohort with Robyn in vindictiveness.  I would like the matter concerning my website stayed until after the litigation between the parties is resolved. I would also like a response from you regarding this request for a stay within 10 days of receipt of this letter, for after that time, I shall want to determine what further action I must take to protect my interests and James Linnehan's. Thank you, sincerely, Barbara C. Johnson cc:  James Linnehan  * * * * * (1) Deborah Wolf wrote in her complaint against me to the Bar that she was appointed in both Bristol County Juvenile Court for a Care and Protection case [Docket No. 8800018] and the Bristol County Probate Court "for related matters" [Docket No. 88W0113-P1], but the docket sheets of the Probate & Family Court case show that Wolf was NOT appointed by that court; (2) While writing that she was appointed as "Sssss's second attorney in October 1991, Deborah Wolf failed to state in which of the two courts that appoint occurred in 1991. Clearly she was attempting to avoid disclosing that she was never appointed in the Probate & Family Court in any year; (3) Wolf wrote also that she was appointed to represent "Sssss Linnehan," a minor child, but she knew and failed to inform the OBC that Sssss Linnehan is not known as Sssss Linnehan amongst his family members or in his school community: he is known as Sssss Xxx, his mother having changed his name unilaterally, that is, without court permission; (4) The Juvenile Court docket sheet does not show that that appointment was ever renewed. In the community of attorneys practicing in the Care and Protection ["C&P"] area, a C&P closes when custody is determined and it is re-opened when a parent brings a "review and redetermination" pursuant to c. 119, sec. 26. The statute is silent on the subject of closing. (5) Despite the statute's silence on the subject of closing, it is highly questionable that a court-appointed attorney, such as Wolf, would have a right to collect fees in assorted courts in assorted types of actions for representing a child from age 3 to age 18 . . . particularly where a means test is necessary in the first place.  (6) There was never a means test of Sssss's mother to pay for her 6-year-old's attorney. Massachusetts G.L. c. 119, sec. 29, requires that means test. Without that means test, the appointment of Deborah Wolf was unlawful. (7) Massachusetts G.L. c. 119, sec. 29, provides a court-appointed attorney for foster care and commitment to custody cases, including cases where DSS or a licensed child-placement agencyis a party (c. 119, secs. 23-27, 29B; c. 201, secs. 5, 14)). The Care and Protection of Sssss was not such a case. From where, therefore, was or is her authority to act on the child's behalf in Probate & Family Court?  (8) Further, Massachusetts G.L. c. 119, s. 29, provides for the appointment of an attorney for the child in certain circumstances, none of which is applicable here, if the child is financially unable to retain counsel. That, too, is inapplicable here, for there was no showing of indigency of Robyn or of the child. In fact, Robyn Gerry-Sylvia was and is receiving child support from both James Linnehan and Michael Sylvia and is employed as a housekeeper. (She also ran for elected office locally. She lost her bid in April 2001.) According to the affidavit of her husband, Michael Sylvia, "She works cleaning houses for other people occasionally during the day, or her own schedule . . ." I have yet to learn whether Robyn declares that income. (9) Similarly, Wolf filed in Juvenile Court a Verified Complaint entered into the docket as 01E0001. In it, she appears to be representing Robyn Gerry-Sylvia as well as Sssss Linnehan. Yet she knows Robyn Gerry-Sylvia was not and is not indigent.  After reviewing the docket sheets from both Juvenile Court and Probate & Family Court, I have been able to determine that Deborah Wolf must be being paid with public funds for work for which she is not authorized to perform.  To whom does she send the bills for her Juvenile Court work?  To whom does she send the bills for her Probate & Family Court work and her court appearances? CPCS? Another fund account administered by the Commonwealth? Robyn?  Who approves of those bills? Who has her bills? With what frequency has she sent them for payment? What tasks are included on them?  I would like to copies of her bills, the signed approvals, check stubs of the payments.  (10) The Verified Complaint was verified by the minor child, although a child cannot file a Care & Protection action against itself. (11) I'd like to see Robyn's affidavit of indigency filed in the Juvenile Court in 1991 and any subsequent dates for the appointment of Deborah Wolf. (12) I phoned Deborah Wolf after I was refused by First Assistant Clerk/Magistrate of New Bedford Juvenile Court Gregory Centeio a copy of a petition which should have been attached to a summons received (but not served) on my client James Linnehan. That summons was returnable June 26th. Upon information and belief, I concluded that Deborah Wolf was either the petitioner or representing the petitioner. She also refused to send me the petition. (13) My client also received a subpoena (it was not properly served) to be a witness at a hearing on Jue 26th. Again Centeio refused to tell me what was to be heard. Again I asked Deborah Wolf. She also refused to tell me the subject of the hearing. (14) Wolf has also claimed that I used confidential records from Juvenile court. Yet Wolf has freely distributed copies of the Juvenile Court docket sheets, which under the Standing Order are also confidential.