#83, Drano Series
Barb's Response to the Complaint
by the 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 separated my response into three responses -- one to Robyn, one to Wolf -- and on 30 June 2001, one to the Bar. I made additions where appropriate.
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
30 June 2001
Susan Strauss Weisberg
Assistant Bar Counsel
Office of the Bar Counsel
75 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110Re: BBO File No. C2-00-0091 (Bar Counsel)
Dear Attorney Weisberg:
Is there some significance to your having changed the grievance file number from a category B to a category C?
The answers to your two questions follow:
Answer to your first question: 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 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.
That pleading accompanied my first letter to you.Answer to your second question:First, you must know that Robyn is a public figure: she was running for selectman in the Town of Fairhaven and recently lost the election.
Second, everything I published is on my website. Assuming your definition of "privileged," "confidential," or other "protected information" is the same as mine, then I did not publish any material which I know to be privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected. The authorities support my position. Some of them, which I cite below, address the media and open courtrooms, where the attending public serves as its own "media."
For instance, "[i]n the absence of a statute, a rule of court, or a principle expressed in an appellate opinion authorizing or directing a courtroom to be closed, the expectation is that courtrooms will be open." Globe Newspaper Co. v. Com, 407 Mass. 879, 884 (1990). Boston Herald v. Sharpe, 432 Mass. 393 (2000).
"Publicity prevents abuses of a single judge's power." Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 379 Mass. 846, 855 (1980), citing In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 268-270. This "`general principle of publicity', . . . [which] governs judicial proceedings in this Commonwealth," was affirmed again in H.S. Gere & Sons, Inc. v. Frey, 400 Mass. 326, 329 (1987). There was no error where "`[t]he public interest in overseeing the integrity of the judicial process is clear while court proceedings are pending ... but the utility of the glare of publicity fades after the termination of the proceedings.' Id. at 332, quoting New Bedford Standard-Times Publishing Co. v. Clerk of the Third Dist. Court of Bristol, 377 Mass. 404, 414 (1979).
We adopted this requirement of a showing of overriding necessity, in part, because of the great public interest in disclosure of all information relevant to misuse of authority and official wrongdoing.
H.S. Gere, 400 Mass. at 332, citing George W. Prescott Publishing Co. v. Register of Probate for Norfolk County, 395 Mass. 274, 279-280.Moreover, "[a]ny limitation on protected expression must be no greater than is necessary to protect the compelling interest that is asserted as a justification for the restraint. George W. Prescott Pub. Co. v. Stoughton Div. of Dist. Court Dept. of Trial Court, 428 Mass. 309, 311 (1998), quoting Care and Protection of Edith, supra.
It is apparent that any order seeking to enjoin speech must be based on detailed findings of fact that (a) identify a compelling interest that the restraint will serve and (b) demonstrate that no reasonable, less restrictive alternative to the order is available." See also Oklahoma Publ. Co. v. District Court, 430 U.S. 308, 97 S.Ct. 1045, 51 L.Ed.2d 355 (1977) (reversing court order enjoining media from publishing name or photograph of eleven year old boy accused of delinquency by reason of murder).Prescott, 428 Mass. at 311, cites omitted.Thus, on the facts here, there being no lawful basis to prohibit me from putting public records on my website or to prohibit me from exercising my First Amendment rights, I can rest on my statement that I did not publish any material which I know to be privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected.
See also Com. v. Dabrieo, 370 Mass. 728, 741-742 (1976) [Exh. A], which allows the use of previously impounded documents to be used at a later trial.
* * * * *
Of the documents uploaded to my website, the only documents which I believe were filed in Juvenile Court are Christopher Salt's reports of 1988 and 1992. None of the other reports appears on the docket sheets in either the Juvenile Court or the Probate & Family Court. Christopher Salt's deposition was subpoenaed in the Probate & Family Court action, not the Juvenile Court action. [See Exh. B, copies of the subpoenas evidencing this fact.]
There was no impoundment order on any documents in the subject care and protection case between the time Salt's reports were written and when I uploaded my pleadings which either referred to or critiqued them or sparsely quoted from them. Note that Com. v. Dabrieo, 370 Mass. 728, 741-742 (1976) [Exh. A], allowed impounded materials to be used in later action, as I have done in Linnehan's behalf in the federal court case. And the caselaw clearly falls four-square on publication, despite the Juvenile Court Standing Order which declares that all "records" are confidential and the property of the court. It raises the question of what are "records"?
One of the lawyers for the defendants in the federal case has also attached Newberger's report to a pleading.
Earlier on, I believed that John McCarthy's letter/reports had been sent to the P&F court because that was required under the stipulation which had been signed, but I have nothing in the file which confirms that was done. Nor does anyone else, including McCarthy, aver that he sent anything to court. It appears that he sent documents to Deborah Wolf, to Bruce Lider, and To Whom It May Concern. Although Linnehan was a signatory to the stipulation, McCarthy never sent him anything but a bill. I assume Wolf or Lider just then went in and argued them to Harper.
Although I remember seeing a transmittal letter in the old file from Sandra Fyfe to a court, neither court's docket sheets show the filing of such a report.
That the Probate & Family Court and Juvenile Court cases were heard by the same judge -- who was a Juvenile Court judge -- created some confusion and possibly some shenanigans or ministerial error. For example, items under a Probate caption -- with only a P&F Court docket number -- sometimes appeared in BOTH docket sheets or on the Juvenile Court docket.
Because I had the documents and did not have convenient access to the Taunton or New Bedford courthouses, I went by the caption and docket number on the pleading or item itself. I was not concerned by this since in most cases the docket sheets are many many months behind the actual date. And all too often, the docket sheets must be corrected before appeal.
It must be made clear that Deborah Wolf sent to the OBC UNcorrected as well as newly fabricated docket sheets, the latter being caused by the recent computerization of previously handwritten docket sheets. Whether every notation was copied onto the computerized version is not only unknown but also highly unlikely. I learned that this might be so when I recently heard retired Judge Rudolph Kass suggest at a seminar that docket sheets should be abridged to accommodate the need to speed up the computerization of the dockets.
Below is a list of the "Linnehan" files that have been uploaded to my website. The sentences in those pleadings which actually had QUOTATION MARKS IN THEM are beneath the names of the pleadings. I've entitled this list LIST ONE.
I have repeated the list of "Linnehan" files that have been uploaded and beneath their titles, I have put the paragraphs which contain sentences that include Sssss's name. (I've put paragraphs so that you may see the context.) I've entitled this list LIST TWO.
To include references for my comments on what went on in the Juvenile and Probate courts would require duplicating all the pleadings. I made a good-faith effort to include them in a list, but it turned out to be a monstrous job and I abandoned it. In any case, the source attribution is already in the pleadings. All one has to do is read them. I was fairly faithful in my pleadings by citing to the exact location in each document which I was summarizing or on which I was commenting. It would therefore be quite easy for one to go to the site and see for oneself what is there. It would save printing out literally hundreds of pages and a month of work. I've already spent an enormous amount of time responding to the Bar because of what I perceive to be vindictive, malicious reportings by Deborah Wolf and Robyn Gerry-Sylvia, and I shall not have more time until Fall.
As I said earlier, if Deborah Wolf has a problem with certain statements, let HER identify them. She has the burden to support her complaint. To switch the burden to me is unacceptable and likely unlawful.
Very frankly, Deborah Wolf can print out whatever pleading she wants and highlight the portions with which she is upset, and cite the law which supports her position. I do not think she can find such caselaw. I do not and can not know what is in either her mind or yours. She, the complainant, should be the one to be required to devote time to the burdensome and unproductive task.
In law school, we learned a rule of thumb: if you allege it, you must prove it. With that in mind, the task is clearly on her shoulders, not mine.
I shall stand by my assertion that what I have uploaded to my website is protected not only by my First Amendment rights but also by scores of Massachusetts caselaw, the most recent of which I gave to you in my first letter and have repeated here.
* * * * *
LIST ONE: Actual Quotations in Boldface
Drano #5: Filed in United States District Court
Amended Complaint Based on the Deprivation of Parental Rights
FROM FOOTNOTE 1: Salt drew no negative conclusion from Robyn having left Maine with Sssss while a court order allowing Linnehan visitation was operative [CS, depo at 13-17]. Instead, he [Christopher Salt] held to his belief that Robyn had "justification" to disobey the Maine court order [CS, depo at 15, lines 7 and 4] by fleeing and hiding with Sssss in Massachusetts [CS depo at 16]. He also concluded that Sssss feared men, and since there was no male around except Linnehan, Linnehan had to be the perpetrator [CS 7/1/88 report at 25; CS depo at 28]. Salt further insisted that even though "there was no diagnosis of sexual abuse, the possibility is not to be eliminated. His fear and anxiety about his father had been confirmed[;] he had undergone a traumatic experience and now suffered from post-traumatic stress" [CS depo at 34]. Drano #9: Filed in United States District Court15. To Christopher Salt, Robyn claimed to have "no live-in boyfriend" [CS 7/1/88 report at 25], causing Salt to write, with the exception of Mr. Fitzgerald who babysat Sssss, "there appears to be no significant males in [Sssss's] life other than Mr. Linnehan."Id.\3/
FOOTNOTE 3: Salt's rendition is a gross misstatement of fact: Robyn and Sssss shared the apartment for about three months with Joseph Fitzgerald, who was the tenant of record, and Salt knew it [CS 7/1/88 report at 17]. Robyn and the divorced Fitzgerald "dated a few times and have remained good friends." Id.
17. To Eli Newberger, the Children Hospital pediatrician whom Attorney Deborah Wolf chose to conduct an evaluation, Robyn asserted that she "married Michael Sylvia in August 1988," which was within weeks of Salt's report [EN 9/8/92 report at 4, para. 2].18. Eli Newberger corroborated that she told that lie, by writing that he had even asked James Linnehan "about his views about Robyn's present husband," and that Linnehan responded "that it was good for Sssss to `have a man around'" [EN 9/8/92 report at 7, para. 7].
21. By Robyn not revealing the truth of her living arrangements and the de facto dissolution of her marriage to Michael Sylvia, and by Newberger not looking for alternative hypotheses for Sssss's alleged behavior -- according to Robyn -- Newberger concluded that Linnehan's visitation with his son must not be resumed lest it further traumatize Sssss.\6/
FOOTNOTE 6: Eli Newberger wrote on page 8 of his so-called evaluation that Robyn "noted that Sssss's drawings, for example, have recently once again become full of negative, dark images and monsters, in contrast to the happier depictions in the interval prior to the recent court initiative. The turning point, [Robyn] indicated, was when Sssss was informed by his former therapist, Mr. Reuben Ferreira, that Sssss's visitations with his father would be reinstated." (Compare these facts to those in paragraph 39.)
25. To this Probate & Family Court in the Gerry-Sylvia/Sylvia divorce case, Robyn claimed to have married Sylvia on "August 28, 1988 after living together for approximately two years" and that during that time she had assumed the responsibility of being sole caregiver of all the children, his, hers, and theirs [RG-S affidavit at 1].28. To her own divorce lawyer, Moira Tierney, Robyn told that Sssss was born out a marital union between herself and James Linnehan: "I assumed complete responsibility for raising [Michael Sylvia's] children and my child from a previous marriage." [See paragraph 6 of Robyn's affidavit, filed on 11 July 1994 in the Gerry-Sylvia/Sylvia case in this court. Emphasis supplied.]
30. To Michael Sylvia, her husband, she told that Sssss was born out a marital union between herself and James Linnehan. [There appears to be no document in the divorce file in which Michael Sylvia corrects Robyn's assertion that Sssss was her "child from a previous marriage."
31. To Jack McCarthy in later years, Robyn still remained silent about her disintegrating marriage to Michael Sylvia [McCarthy's letter of 3 August 1994 to Bruce Lider, Robyn's attorney in Linnehan's case].
34. On page 2 of Michael Sylvia's affidavit filed in the divorce case, he corroborates Linnehan's assertions: "My wife has moved with her son Sssss at least seven or eight times."\7/
FOOTNOTE 7: After their first separation beginning in 1991, the Sylvias have not lived together since 1994.
36. Specifically the cause of complaints allegedly made by Sssss and communicated to Salt by Robyn were (a) attributed to Linnehan and (b) believed by Salt because (c) Robyn lied: for example, (d) Robyn said that Sssss at 6 years of age believed that the therapist (Ferreira) conspired with Linnehan so that Linnehan could take him to his house, and (e) Robyn "stressed" to Salt that "her husband Michael is very important to Sssss and that Michael treats her son as if he were his own." [CS report at 2; also 15].39. Specifically Salt himself lied in that report of 5 January 1992 to Judge Harper: he wrote that Reuben Ferreira had acknowledged that Sssss's visiting Linnehan "might well be detrimental." Linnehan now understands that Salt's statement was false because Salt never spoke to Ferreira.
Opposition to Christopher Salt's Motion to Dismiss
Salt filed his report on 1 July 1988. He drew no negative conclusion from Robyn having left Maine with Sssss while a court order allowing Linnehan visitation was in effect [CS depo at 13-17], and insisted that Robyn had "justification" to disobey the Maine court order [id. at 15, lines 7 and 4] by fleeing and hiding with Sssss in Massachusetts [id. at 16]. Drano #14: Filed in United States District CourtTo Christopher Salt, Robyn claimed to have "no live-in boyfriend" [CS 7/1/88 report at 25], but Salt knew this to be untrue, viz., Salt knew that Robyn and Sssss shared an apartment for about three months with Joseph Fitzgerald, who was the tenant of record [id. at 17]. Robyn and the divorced Fitzgerald, Salt wrote, "dated a few times and have remained good friends" [id.] and with the exception of Mr. Fitzgerald who baby-sat Sssss, "there appears to be no significant males in [Sssss's] life other than Mr. Linnehan" [id. at 25].
Salt further insisted that even though "there was no diagnosis of sexual abuse, the possibility is not to be eliminated. His fear and anxiety about his father had been confirmed[;] he had undergone a traumatic experience and now suffered from post-traumatic stress" [CS depo. at 34].
In 1991, the court ordered Salt to provide an updated report -- a "parenting" assessment -- to the court; this report was submitted to the court in January 1992.
Salt's goal, it appears, was to continue to win favor with a judge (now retired) from whom he had received 30 or 40 assignments for reports [CS depo at 8-9]. Of the 60 court investigations that Salt had performed in two-and-a-half years [id. at 8], he found abuse in all but three [id. at 10] and all were done for the Bristol County Juvenile Court "except for one or two" [id. at 8].
Specifically, the complaints allegedly made by Sssss were communicated to Salt by Robyn and not by Sssss. Salt irrationally accepted as truth Robyn's assertion that Sssss at 6 years of age believed that his therapist (Ferreira) conspired with Linnehan so that Linnehan could take him to his house. And given that his assignment was to investigate the parents, it was grossly negligent to accept without a visit to Robyn and Sssss's home environment Robyn's assertion that "her husband Michael is very important to Sssss and that Michael treats her son as if he were his own" [CS 1/5/92 report at 2; also 15].
Specifically Salt himself lied in that report of 5 January 1992 to Judge Harper: he wrote that Reuben Ferreira acknowledged that Sssss's visiting Linnehan "might well be detrimental." Salt's statement was false because Salt never spoke to Ferreira, and Ferreira was in favor of visitation.
Opposition to Eli Newberger's Motion to Remove Entry of Default
Nothing quoted or commented upon from Juvenile or Probate & Family Court. Drano #15: Filed in United States District CourtMotion to Strike Eli Newberger's Answer to Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss
Nothing quoted or commented upon from Juvenile or Probate & Family Court. Drano #17: Filed in United States District CourtOpposition to Sandra Fyfe's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
She [Fyfe] shared her baseless recommendation, which was contrary to four or five other opinions,\6/ with Christopher Salt, with DSS, and with the court, despite there being no document in the records seen by Linnehan's counsel which confirms that the court appointed either her or her employer, the Collis Center, to perform an assessment. FOOTNOTE 6: Years later, in 1992, Susan DesRosiers of New Bedford Child & Family Services wrote, "Dr. Chase feels it is now appropriate for Mr. Linnehan to have supervised visits" and "Dr. Ferreira recommended supervised visits resume." Dr. Kevin Chase is the executive director of Gosnold/Thorne Counseling Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts. The court did not listen. NOTE There was no paper in the files given to me that showed Collins Center had been appointed, although I saw a reference the other day in the new docket sheet from Juvenile Court. The written record shows only that Fyfe's report was received.\7/ NOTE
There was a transmittal letter in a file given to me that the
report was sent but the new docket sheet from Juvenile
Court does not show that the report was filed.Drano #19: Filed in United States District Court FOOTNOTE 7: Linnehan's theory that the Collis Center was not appointed is buttressed by the fact that the Office of the Chief Justice assigned Attorney Brian Mulcahy to represent Christopher Salt (whose appointment is in the court file), but did not appoint him or any other counsel to represent Fyfe or even Defendant John "Jack" McCarthy. If they were not duly appointed, they are not protected by absolute immunity . . . or by any other type of immunity. They, nevertheless, acted under color of law with impunity, if not immunity. Opposition to Eli Newberger's Motion to Remove Entry of Default
Nothing quoted or commented upon from Juvenile or Probate & Family Court cases involving Linnehan. Drano #20: Filed in United States District CourtAffidavit of James Linnehan in Support of His Opposition and Memorandum in Support of Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Nothing quoted from Juvenile or Probate & Family Court cases involving Linnehan. Drano #21: Filed in United States District CourtOpposition to Eileen Kern's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Linnehan was not given the opportunity to rebut and cross-examine Kern on her report.\1/ Drano #22: Filed in Bristol County Probate & Family Court
FOOTNOTE 1: Duro v. Duro, 392 Mass. 574, 574-575, 580,
581 (1984).
Adding insult to the deprivation of constitutional due process is that Kern never interviewed Linnehan and never met him before or after she recommended that he be denied visitation with his son. Kern's sources were Sssss's mother and the 3-year-old toddler, who spoke of kitties and toy dinosaurs and Batman and Robin and to whom Kern irresponsibly and outrageously read a sex-abuse-filled comicbook named "Spiderman."Kern's conclusion was considered by Newberger, and has been given credence to this day. [Newberger report, par. 6, attached to the Motion to Dismiss filed by Jack McCarthy, who relied on the Newberger report and everything in it as late as 1999.
Amended Complaint for Modification Pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 15(a) (James Linnehan v. Robyn Gerry Sylvia)
Instead, he held to his belief that Robyn had "justification" to disobey the Maine court order [CS, depo at 15, lines 7 and 4] by fleeing and hiding with Sssss in Massachusetts [CS depo at 16]. He also concluded that Sssss feared men, and since there was no male around except Linnehan, Linnehan had to be the perpetrator [CS 7/1/88 report at 25; CS depo at 28]. Salt further insisted that even though "there was no diagnosis of sexual abuse, the possibility is not to be eliminated. His fear and anxiety about his father had been confirmed[;] he had undergone a traumatic experience and now suffered from post-traumatic stress" [CS depo at 34]. Drano #23: Filed by Robyn Gerry-Sylvia in Bristol County Probate & Family Court15. To Christopher Salt, Robyn claimed to have "no live-in boyfriend" [CS 7/1/88 report at 25], causing Salt to write, with the exception of Mr. Fitzgerald who babysat Sssss, "there appears to be no significant males in [Sssss's] life other than Mr. Linnehan."Id.\3/ FOOTNOTE 3: Salt's rendition is a gross misstatement of fact: Robyn and Sssss shared the apartment for about three months with Joseph Fitzgerald, who was the tenant of record, and Salt knew it [CS 7/1/88 report at 17]. Robyn and the divorced Fitzgerald "dated a few times and have remained good friends." Id.
17. To Eli Newberger, the Children Hospital pediatrician whom Attorney Deborah Wolf chose to conduct an evaluation, Robyn asserted that she "married Michael Sylvia in August 1988," which was within weeks of Salt's report [EN 9/8/92 report at 4, para. 2].18. Eli Newberger corroborated that she told that lie, by writing that he had even asked James Linnehan "about his views about Robyn's present husband," and that Linnehan responded "that it was good for Sssss to `have a man around'" [EN 9/8/92 report at 7, para. 7].
25. To this Probate & Family Court in the Gerry-Sylvia/ Sylvia divorce case, Robyn claimed to have married Sylvia on "August 28, 1988 after living together for approximately two years" and that during that time she had assumed the responsibility of being sole caregiver of all the children, his, hers, and theirs [RG-S affidavit at 1].
28. To her own divorce lawyer, Moira Tierney, Robyn told that Sssss was born out a marital union between herself and James Linnehan: "I assumed complete responsibility for raising [Michael Sylvia's] children and my child from a previous marriage." [See paragraph 6 of Robyn's affidavit, filed on 11 July 1994 in the Gerry-Sylvia/Sylvia case in this court. Emphasis supplied.]
30. To Michael Sylvia, her husband, she told that Sssss was born out a marital union between herself and James Linnehan. [There appears to be no document in the divorce file in which Michael Sylvia corrects Robyn's assertion that Sssss was her "child from a previous marriage."
34. On page 2 of Michael Sylvia's affidavit filed in the divorce case, he corroborates Linnehan's assertions: "My wife has moved with her son Sssss at least seven or eight times."\7/
FOOTNOTE 7: After their first separation beginning in 1991, the Sylvias have not lived together since 1994.
36. Specifically the cause of complaints allegedly made by Sssss and communicated to Salt by Robyn were (a) attributed to Linnehan and (b) believed by Salt because (c) Robyn lied: for example, (d) Robyn said that Sssss at 6 years of age believed that the therapist (Ferreira) conspired with Linnehan so that Linnehan could take him to his house, and (e) Robyn "stressed" to Salt that "her husband Michael is very important to Sssss and that Michael treats her son as if he were his own." [CS report at 2; also 15].39. Specifically Salt himself lied in that report of 5 January 1992 to Judge Harper: he wrote that Reuben Ferreira had acknowledged that Sssss's visiting Linnehan "might well be detrimental." Linnehan now understands that Salt's statement was false because Salt never spoke to Ferreira.
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBYN GERRY-SYLVIA IN HER DIVORCE CASE (Robyn Gerry-Sylvia v. Michael R. Sylvia Divorce Case)
Nothing quoted or commented upon from Juvenile or Probate & Family Court cases involving Linnehan. Drano #24: Filed by Michael Sylvia in Bristol County Probate & Family CourtAFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL R. SYLVIA IN HIS DIVORCE CASE (Robyn Gerry-Sylvia v. Michael R. Sylvia Divorce Case)
Nothing quoted or commented upon from Juvenile or Probate & Family Court cases involving Linnehan. Drano #25: Filed by Robyn Gerry-Sylvia in Bristol County Probate & Family CourtComplaint (Robyn Gerry-Sylvia v. Michael R. Sylvia Divorce Case)
Nothing quoted or commented upon from Juvenile or Probate & Family Court cases involving Linnehan. Drano #26: Published in the Haverhill Gazette, August 3-9, 2000Obituary of a Grandfather Who Longed to See His Grandson Before He Died . . . AND THE LETTER OF THE PSYCHOLOGIST WHO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF GRANDPARENTS' VISITATION Addressed to Whom It May Concern, formerly believed to have been filed in court, but not on any docket sheet; now believed to have been sent to Deborah Wolf, who then distributed it.
Nothing quoted or commented upon from Juvenile or Probate & Family Court cases involving Linnehan. Drano #28: Jim's Family PicturesNothing quoted or commented upon from Juvenile or Probate & Family Court cases involving Linnehan. Drano #31: Filed in United States District CourtLinnehan's Opposition and Combined Memorandum in Support of His Opposition to Children's Hospital's and Eli Newberger's Motion to Dismiss
Literally one day after the mediation in Maine stalemated as to the visitation issue, Robyn made an appointment at New Bedford Child and Family Services with Defendant Eileen Kern [Complaint, par. 12], who shortly thereafter filed with DSS a 51A report of suspected emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of Sssss. [Compl, par. 128.] Kern's role as a reporter was unknown to Linnehan, for, as Kern wrote, DSS never reveals who the mandated reporter is [Kern Mot. at n. 2], making Kern's identity unknown to Linnehan and available only upon accidental discovery.\1/ Drano #32: Filed in United States District Court
FOOTNOTE 1: Linnehan was not given the opportunity to rebut and cross-examine Kern on her report. Adding insult to the deprivation of constitutional due process is that Kern never interviewed Linnehan and never met him before or after she recommended that he be denied visitation with his son. Kern's sources were Sssss's mother and the 3-year-old toddler, who spoke of kitties and toy dinosaurs and Batman and Robin and to whom Kern irresponsibly and outrageously read a sex-abuse-filled comicbook named "Spiderman."
Salt filed his report on 1 July 1988 (back-to-back with Fyfe's report). He drew no negative conclusion from Robyn having left Maine with Sssss while a court order allowing Linnehan visitation was in effect [CS depo at 13-17], and insisted that Robyn had "justification" to disobey the Maine court order [id. at 15, lines 7 and 4] by fleeing and hiding with Sssss in Massachusetts [id. at 16].To Christopher Salt, Robyn claimed to have "no live-in boyfriend" [CS 7/1/88 report at 25], but Salt knew this to be untrue, viz., Salt knew that Robyn and Sssss shared an apartment for about three months with Joseph Fitzgerald, who was the tenant of record [id. at 17]. Robyn and the divorced Fitzgerald, Salt wrote, "dated a few times and have remained good friends" [id.] and with the exception of Mr. Fitzgerald who baby-sat Sssss, "there appears to be no significant males in [Sssss's] life other than Mr. Linnehan" [id. at 25].
Thus Salt's conclusion that Linnehan had to be the perpetrator of the suspected sexual abuse because there was no male around except Linnehan and because Sssss feared men was specious [CS 7/1/88 report at 25; CS depo at 28].\4/
FOOTNOTE 4: In fact, Robyn and Sssss lived in a multifamily building where three other males also lived, one of whom lived next door with her best girlfriend.
Salt further insisted that even though "there was no diagnosis of sexual abuse, the possibility is not to be eliminated. His fear and anxiety about his father had been confirmed[;] he had undergone a traumatic experience and now suffered from post-traumatic stress" [id. at 34].By 1991, Salt updated his report -- a "parenting" assessment -- and submitted it to the court in January 1992. Again Salt recommended that Linnehan be denied visitation with his son [CS 1/5/92 report at 16]. The court accepted Salt's recommendation. Of the 60 court investigations that Salt had performed in two-and-a-half years [id. at 8], he found abuse in all but three [id. at 10] and all were done for the Bristol County Juvenile Court "except for one or two" [id. at 8].
Specifically Salt himself lied in that report of 5 January 1992 to Judge Harper: he wrote that Reuben Ferreira acknowledged that Sssss's visiting Linnehan "might well be detrimental." Salt's statement was false because Salt never spoke to Ferreira, and Ferreira was in favor of visitation.
Also in 1992, Susan DesRosiers, case manager of Linnehan's case at New Bedford Child & Family Services wrote, "Dr. Chase feels it is now appropriate for Mr. Linnehan to have supervised visits" and "Dr. Ferreira recommended supervised visits resume." Dr. Kevin Chase is the executive director of Gosnold/Thorne Counseling Center in Falmouth, Mass. The court did not listen.
A third assessment was suggested by Attorney Deborah Wolf (Sssss's attorney). Linnehan was against it because Sssss had already been interviewed an excessive number of times. Eventually be was Shanghai-ed into signing a stipulation of agreement with the proviso that it would be a "psychological evaluation" of both Robyn and Linnehan and that Sssss would not be re-interviewed. It was to be conducted by Newberger. It was then February 1992. The report issued on 8 September 1992, not May 1992 as Newberger and the hospital alleged on page 2 of their briefs.\9/ Linnehan was upset when Newberger's focus was on Sssss rather than on the reasonable goal of bringing father and son together again.\10/ By the time Newberger saw Sssss, it is likely that the child's memory had been irreversibly contaminated.
FOOTNOTE 9: Newberger 11 May 1992 letter to the child's attorney (Wolf) was a preliminary 1-page report in which he wrote that Linnehan was not to see the child.FOOTNOTE 10: The Children's Hospital Newberger team consisted of a licensed psychologist, (Merrill Berger), a post-doctoral psychology fellow (Maureen O'Brien) and Newberger.
Linnehan's Opposition and Memorandum in Support of Opposition to John McCarthy's Motion to Dismiss
On 10 March 1999, McCarthy did it again: he relied on the Newberger report to recommend that Linnehan's parents, enneagenarians, be denied permission to see their grandson [Exh. D]. [Am.Comp. par. 145]. That same letter, addressed "To Whom It May Concern," reveals that McCarthy met with Robyn 21 times over the 1-1/2 years between September 1993 and April 1995 and that Sssss attended "some" sessions [Exh. D]. Contrast that assertion with that in Exh. C, where it was reported he never saw Sssss alone, and with the bills Exh. E, which show no individual sessions with Sssss.
Drano #34: Juvenile Court Judge Lawton's Order of Impoundment of Materials Being Sued on in Federal Court.Judicial Order.
Drano #37: Letter to Judge Mark E. Lawton about Order to Impound Reports of Social Workers, Psychologists, and Eli Newberger-Childrens Hospital and Certain Documents on This Website
Comments on the failure of service and assorted rule violations.
Drano #39: Filed in United States District CourtPLAINTIFFS' BRIEF ON (1) COURT'S AUTHORITY TO RETAIN JURISDICTION, (2) DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST ELI NEWBERGER, (3) LINNEHAN'S SURREPLY TO DEFENDANT McCARTHY'S REPLY TO LINNEHAN'S OPPOSITION TO HIS MOTION TO DISMISS
A brief primarily on the inapplicability of the domestic relations exception to the federal court action. * * * * * LIST TWO: Sssss'S NAME
NOTE
Drano #5: Filed in United States District CourtSssss Linnehan is known as SSSSS Yyy.Amended Complaint Based on the Deprivation of Parental Rights
4. Plaintiff James Linnehan ["Linnehan"], is a natural person residing at 19 Vermont Street, Salisbury, Essex County, Massachusetts, 01952, United States of America; was a resident of both Maine and Massachusetts during all relevant times of this action; and is the biological father of Sssss Linnehan. [FACTS AS TO LINNEHAN, page 16.] Drano #9: Filed in United States District Court114. The mother ["Robyn"] of Linnehan's son, Sssss, left Maine with the boy while a court order allowing Linnehan visitation was operative.
115. Defendant Christopher Salt ["Salt"], a Massachusetts-court- appointed evaluator, held to his belief that Robyn had "justification" to disobey the Maine court order by fleeing and hiding with Sssss in Massachusetts.
116. Once here in Massachusetts, the initial assessment of Sssss and his mother, Robyn, was conducted by Defendant Eileen Kern in March 1988 at New Bedford Child Family Services.
118. At the Collis Center, during May and June 1988, Defendant Sandra Fyfe, M.S., met with Sssss and with Robyn, and the Executive Director, Thomas "Tom" Tanguay, a licensed social worker, met with Linnehan. Although four therapists recommended that Linnehan be allowed visitation with his son, Fyfe wrote the report and included the recommendation that he not be allowed visitation -- with or without supervision -- with his son. Fyfe had no reasonable suspicion that Sssss had been sexually abused by anyone, including James Linnehan.
120. Salt also concluded that Sssss feared men, and that since there was no male around except Linnehan, Linnehan had to be the perpetrator of the suspected sexual abuse.
122. Salt also concluded that Sssss's fear and anxiety about his father had been confirmed, and that Sssss had undergone a traumatic experience and now suffered from post-traumatic stress."
125. Salt's rendition of the facts in the Linnehan case is a gross knowing and intentional misstatement of fact: i.e., Salt never considered that Robyn and Linnehan's son, Sssss, shared an apartment for about three months with one Joseph Fitzgerald, who was the tenant of record, and Salt knew it -- that Robyn and the divorced Fitzgerald "dated a few times and have remained good friends."
127. Salt lied in his report of 5 January 1992 to Judge Harper: he wrote that Reuben Ferreira had acknowledged that Sssss's visiting Linnehan "might well be detrimental." Salt's statement was false because Salt never spoke to Ferreira.
128. Also despite not having any reasonable suspicion or any proof of sexual abuse, Defendant Eileen Kern filed a 51A report, DSS social worker Robert Mendez interviewed Sssss, Robyn, and Linnehan.
130. The third court-ordered "psychological evaluation" of both Robyn and Linnehan (not Sssss) was, as suggested by Attorney Deborah Wolf (Sssss's attorney), conducted by Defendant Newberger.
134. Newberger focused on Sssss rather than on the goal of bringing father and son together again.
135. Linnehan's son, Sssss, was interviewed an excessive number of times, so that by the time Newberger saw him, the child's memory had been irreversibly contaminated.
137. Although the Newberger evaluation of the Linnehan family occurred between approximately 27 February 1992 and 8 May 1992, the Newberger evaluation has been used as the basis for denying Linnehan any contact whatsoever with Sssss every day through the present.
149. Moreover, the mother, Robyn, is still embroiled in the divorce from Michael Sylvia ["Michael"], who was a widower with two children at the time he married Robyn, then pregnant for a second time out of wedlock. (When Robyn Gerry birthed Sssss, she was unwed.\6/
FOOTNOTE 6: When she later married, she became Robyn Gerry Sylvia. She is now evidently using the surname Gerry-Sylvia.) She moved seven times with the minor children. Her divorce has been ongoing since 1994 in Bristol County Probate & Family Court, where it was assigned Docket No. 94D-1058-D1.
152. Sssss is now being denied not only only his biological dad but also his stepdad.\7/
FOOTNOTE 7: Sssss, too, has had a constitutionally protected interest in being with his biological father. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 10.
153. Neither Newberger nor anyone else who performs thorough work has done a follow-up of Robyn Gerry-Sylvia or Sssss Linnehan.\8/
FOOTNOTE 8: Newberger and/or members of his team have also not followed up on the other children they evaluated.
155. Newberger's stated purpose of the evaluation was to determine the veracity of the allegations of abuse of Sssss by Linnehan.158. The areas of conflict regarded: Sssss's home life, visitation or no visitation, the circumstances out of which the false allegations arose, the significance of the Linnehan's MMPI examinations, conflict over whether sexual abuse occurred.
159. Newberger and the team did not conduct observation sessions between Linnehan and his son, Sssss.
160. At the time Newberger's team saw Sssss, there was no way they could determine the truth of what happened.
Opposition to Christopher Salt's Motion to Dismiss
James Linnehan's son Sssss was born on 9 February 1985. Drano #14: Filed in United States District CourtAround two years later, the boy's mother, Robyn Gerry a/k/a Robyn Gerry Sylvia and Robyn Gerry-Sylvia ["Robyn"], left Maine with the boy while a Maine court order allowing Linnehan visitation was in effect.
But for two supervised visits with the child when he was around five years of age, Linnehan last saw his son, Sssss, when the boy was three years of age. Sssss is now 15 years of age. Sssss likely has no independent memory of James Linnehan.
A day after the Maine mediation stalemated, Robyn called the New Bedford Child Family Services, and a day later brought the child in to see Eileen Kern for an initial assessment of Sssss and his mother, Robyn.
Shortly thereafter Kern both recommended to Judge Harper that a sexual-abuse assessment be done, and filed with DSS a complaint (pursuant to G.L. c. 119, sec. 51A), alleging that Linnehan had emotionally, physically, and sexually abused Sssss.
Salt filed his report on 1 July 1988. He drew no negative conclusion from Robyn having left Maine with Sssss while a court order allowing Linnehan visitation was in effect [CS depo at 13-17] and insisted that Robyn had "justification" to disobey the Maine court order [id. at 15, lines 7 and 4] by fleeing and hiding with Sssss in Massachusetts [id. at 16].
To Christopher Salt, Robyn claimed to have "no live-in boyfriend" [CS 7/1/88 report at 25], but Salt knew this to be untrue, viz., Salt knew that Robyn and Sssss shared an apartment for about three months with Joseph Fitzgerald, who was the tenant of record [id. at 17]. Robyn and the divorced Fitzgerald, Salt wrote, "dated a few times and have remained good friends" [id.] and with the exception of Mr. Fitzgerald who baby-sat Sssss, "there appears to be no significant males in [Sssss's] life other than Mr. Linnehan" [id. at 25].
Thus Salt's conclusion that Linnehan had to be the perpetrator of the suspected sexual abuse because there was no male around except Linnehan and because Sssss feared men was specious [CS 7/1/88 report at 25; CS depo at 28].\3/
FOOTNOTE 3: In fact, Robyn and Sssss lived in a multifamily building where three other males also lived, one of whom lived next door with her best girlfriend.
Robyn's ultimate goal was to win sole physical and legal custody of the child Sssss and permanently deprive Linnehan of a relationship with their son.Specifically, the complaints allegedly made by Sssss were communicated to Salt by Robyn and not by Sssss. Salt irrationally accepted as truth Robyn's assertion that Sssss at 6 years of age believed that his therapist (Ferreira) conspired with Linnehan so that Linnehan could take him to his house. And given that his assignment was to investigate the parents, it was grossly negligent to accept without a visit to Robyn and Sssss's home environment Robyn's assertion that "her husband Michael is very important to Sssss and that Michael treats her son as if he were his own" [CS 1/5/92 report at 2; also 15].
Specifically Salt himself lied in that report of 5 January 1992 to Judge Harper: he wrote that Reuben Ferreira acknowledged that Sssss's visiting Linnehan "might well be detrimental." Salt's statement was false because Salt never spoke to Ferreira, and Ferreira was in favor of visitation.
Linnehan was not allowed to call him for examination, and his son Sssss never testified, being but a 3-year-old toddler at the time of Salt's first report.
Adoption of Sean, 36 Mass.App.Ct. 261 (1994), a case relied upon Salt, is distinguishable from Sssss Linnehan's care and protection case, for in Sean, the affected party was given opportunity (1) to distinguish between statements of the guardian ad litem's opinion which she considered inadmissible and statements of fact which were admissible and (2) to have a hearing.
Here, Christopher Salt had made no reasonable effort to learn the truth of what, if anything happened, between Linnehan and his son, Sssss. Salt merely parroted what the mother told him, failed to question mother adequately, and although Salt became aware that mother and child were living with another man, Joseph Fiztgerald, Salt outrageously and untruthfully wrote that because no other man was around, Linnehan was the perpetrator of abuse against his son, Sssss. It was beyond all bounds of human decency to accuse an innocent man of such a crime and to cause him to lose all contact with his son based on no evidence other than that the words of a woman who sought only revenge for his failure to marry her.
They suggestively and improperly questioned the child until Sssss allegedly accused Linnehan, and rubber-stamped each other's decisions that Linnehan had sexually abused his child. Linnehan was not allowed to confront the accusing Salt in a court of law before he was deprived of his relationship with his son Sssss, and he suffered damages that are a direct result of those acts.
Opposition to Eli Newberger's Motion to Remove Entry of Default
Sssss's name does not appear in this file.
Drano #15: Filed in United States District Court
Motion to Strike Eli Newberger's Answer to Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss
Sssss's name does not appear in this file.
Drano #17: Filed in United States District Court
Opposition to Sandra Fyfe's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
James Linnehan's son Sssss was born out of wedlock on 9 February 1985. By 1986, the unwed couple was in court over custody and visitation. When Sssss was a little over two years old, his mother, Robyn Gerry, left Maine with him while a Maine-court order allowing Linnehan visitation was in effect. After 10 months, Linnehan found them in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Drano #19: Filed in United States District CourtSoon thereafter, Linnehan moved to Massachusetts to be near his son, but the Maine action was still pending. Maine never declined jurisdiction over Linnehan and Robyn. No home-state hearing occurred in Massachusetts. No judges conferred. Massachusetts never declared it would exercise jurisdiction. Massachusetts did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and there was no emergency to assert jurisdiction under M.G.L. c. 209B, the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (MCCJA).
Literally one day after the mediation in Maine stalemated as to the visitation issue, Robyn made an appointment with a so-called therapist (Defendant Eileen Kern), who shortly thereafter filed with DSS a 51A report of suspected emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of Sssss Kern's role as a reporter was unknown to Linnehan, for, as Kern wrote in her Mot. at n. 2, DSS never reveals who the mandated reporter is, making Kern's identity unknown to Linnehan and available only upon accidental discovery.
. . . DSS that he got his first copy of the 1988 DSS report . . . and that report was redacted.
It is known, however, that at the Collis Center, during May and June 1988, Sandra Fyfe, a then-unlicensed caseworker [Exh. A], met withSssss and Robyn, while the Executive Director, Thomas Tanguay, a licensed social worker, met with Linnehan.
But for two supervised visits with the child when he was around five years of age, Linnehan last saw his son, Sssss, when the boy was three years of age. Sssss is now 15 years old.
Opposition to Eli Newberger's Motion to Remove Entry of Default
Nothing quoted or commented upon from Juvenile or Probate & Family Court cases involving Linnehan. Drano #20: Filed in United States District CourtAffidavit of James Linnehan in Support of His Opposition and Memorandum in Support of Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
3. My son Sssss was born on 9 February 1985.
7. In the months that followed, Robyn, Sssss, and I drove together from Massachusetts to Maine to participate in a court-ordered mediation and back again to Massachusetts. Abuse was not alleged in Maine. Drano #21: Filed in United States District Court9. Literally one day after the mediation in Maine stalemated as to the visitation issue, Robyn made an appointment with Defendant Eileen Kern ["Kern"], who shortly thereafter filed with DSS a 51A report of suspected emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of Sssss.
11. Shortly thereafter Kern both recommended to Judge Harper that a sexual-abuse assessment be done and filed a complaint (pursuant to G.L. c. 119, sec. 51A), alleging that I had emotionally, physically, and sexually abused Sssss.
12. Suddenly there was a restraining order on me, and I was not allowed to see the child. (After that, but for two supervised visits with the child when he was around five years of age, I did not see Sssss again.)
14. Defendant Sandra Fyfe, M.S., who has represented that she was working for the Collis Center, has also represented that she met with Sssss and with Robyn. Fyfe certainly never interviewed me nor observed me and my son together.
19. Because I was never told what occurred when Fyfe interviewed Robyn and Sssss -- if, in fact, she did -- so I do not know whether she had a reasonable cause for suspicion that someone else abused Sssss in some manner. I was never allowed to call Fyfe for examination.
37. But for two supervised visits with Sssss when he was around five years of age, I last saw him when he was three. Sssss is now 15 years old.
44. I believe Sandra Fyfe participated with some of the other defendants in two or more predicate acts against me. They communicated by telephone and letter their biased presumptions, their flawed and specious conclusions and opinions to each other and to third parties not named in this action, that I had sexually abused my child. They suggestively and improperly questioned the child until Sssss allegedly accused me, and rubber-stamped each other's decisions that I had sexually abused my child.
46. I was not allowed to confront the accusing Fyfe in a court of law before I was deprived of my relationship with my son, Sssss, and I've suffered damages that are a direct result of those acts.
47. I last saw my son, Sssss, when he was three years of age. Sssss is now 15 years of age. Sssss likely has no independent memory of me.
Opposition to Eileen Kern's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
James Linnehan's son Sssss was born out of wedlock on 9 February 1985. By 1986, the unwed couple was in court over custody and visitation. When Sssss was a little over two years old, his mother, Robyn Gerry, left Maine with him while a Maine-court order allowing Linnehan visitation was in effect. After 10 months, Linnehan found them in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Drano #22: Filed in Bristol County Probate & Family CourtLiterally one day after the mediation in Maine stalemated as to the visitation issue, Robyn made an appointment at New Bedford Child and Family Services with Defendant Eileen Kern [Complaint, par. 12], who shortly thereafter filed with DSS a 51A report of suspected emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of Sssss.
FOOTNOTE 4: Sandra Fyfe's take on the referral is different: she wrote that the court requested Kern to refer Sssss to Fyfe's agency. [Fyfe's report at 1] Though that explanation seems unlikely, if true, it creates a genuine dispute over whether Fyfe was not a state actor when she performed and wrote the report of the sex-abuse assessment, and whether Fyfe became a state actor when she filed the report in court.
FOOTNOTE 5: It is known, however, that at the Collis Center, during May and June 1988, Sandra Fyfe, a then-unlicensed caseworker, met with Sssss and Robyn, while the Executive Director, Thomas Tanguay, a licensed social worker, met with Linnehan. [Fyfe's involvement is discussed more fully in the FACTS section of Linnehan's Opposition to Fyfe's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.]
Perhaps out of friendship or loyalty to Kern or to the women's movement, even though Fyfe found no basis for Kern's belief that Sssss had been sexually abused [Fyfe's report at 3], she, nevertheless, overrode her Executive Director Tanguay's opinion and recommended that Linnehan not be allowed to visit with his son.
Kern's sources were Sssss's mother and the 3-year-old toddler, who spoke of kitties and toy dinosaurs and Batman and Robin and to whom Kern irresponsibly and outrageously read a sex-abuse-filled comicbook named "Spiderman."
But for two supervised visits with the child when he was around five years of age, Linnehan last saw his son, Sssss, when the boy was three years of age. He will be 16 on 9 February 2001. FOOTNOTE 13: Kern's report reveals she mindlessly accused Linnehan of an unconscionable sin simply because the woman he declined to marry said he did. Experienced, she knew that her report would enter the court record and influence the sitting judge, and that she would share her opinions with DSS and future caseworkers. The consequences of her acts on Linnehan were foreseeable, and Kern was deliberately indifferent to their effect on his life and on that of his child, of his instant fatherlessness. And now coldly, she admits she never spoke to or saw Sssss ever again . . . nor made any attempt to do so.
Nor was Linnehan allowed to call her to the witness stand for xamination, and his son Sssss never testified, being but a 3-year-old toddler at the time of Kern's report.
Amended Complaint for Modification Pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 15(a) (James Linnehan v. Robyn Gerry Sylvia)
This is an action in which the Plaintiff, James Linnehan, is seeking to re-establish the father-son relationship between himself and his son, SSSSSSS, and be awarded custody of Sssss. As ground for the action, there is a substantial change in circumstances as required by G.L. c. 209C, sec. 20, and the continuing deprivation of parental rights under the state and federal constitutions. Drano #23: Filed by Robyn Gerry-Sylvia in Bristol County Probate & Family Court1. The plaintiff is James Linnehan ["Linnehan"], who resides at XX XXXXXXXXXXX; was a resident of both Maine and Massachusetts during all relevant times of this action; and is the biological father of Sssss Linnehan.
2. The defendant is Robyn L. (Gerry) Sylvia ["Robyn"], who resides at YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYl, was a resident of both Maine and Massachusetts during all relevant times of this action, and is the biological mother of Sssss Linnehan.
3. But for two supervised visits with the child when he was around five years of age, Linnehan last saw his son, Sssss, when the boy was three years of age.
4. Sssss is now 15 years of age.
5. Sssss likely has no independent memory of James Linnehan.
FOOTNOTE 1: Salt drew no negative conclusion from Robyn having left Maine with Sssss while a court order allowing Linnehan visitation was operative [CS, depo at 13-17]. Instead, he held to his belief that Robyn had "justification" to disobey the Maine court order [CS, depo at 15, lines 7 and 4] by fleeing and hiding with Sssss in Massachusetts [CS depo at 16]. He also concluded that Sssss feared men, and since there was no male around except Linnehan, Linnehan had to be the perpetrator [CS 7/1/88 report at 25; CS depo at 28]. Salt further insisted that even though "there was no diagnosis of sexual abuse, the possibility is not to be eliminated. His fear and anxiety about his father had been confirmed[;] he had undergone a traumatic experience and now suffered from post-traumatic stress" [CS depo at 34].
13. Robyn's ultimate goal was to win sole physical and legal custody of the child Sssss and permanently deprive Linnehan of a relationship with his son.
15. To Christopher Salt, Robyn claimed to have "no live-in boyfriend" [CS 7/1/88 report at 25], causing Salt to write, with the exception of Mr. Fitzgerald who babysat Sssss, "there appears to be no significant males in [Sssss's] life other than Mr. Linnehan."
FOOTNOTE 3: Salt's rendition is a gross misstatement of fact: Robyn and Sssss shared the apartment for about three months with Joseph Fitzgerald, who was the tenant of record, and Salt knew it [CS 7/1/88 report at 17]. Robyn and the divorced Fitzgerald "dated a few times and have remained good friends." Id. 16. The purpose of telling Christopher Salt that she had no live-in boyfriend was to show that no other male could have inflicted trauma on Sssss except Linnehan.
18. Eli Newberger corroborated that she told that lie, by writing that he had even asked James Linnehan "about his views about Robyn's present husband," and that Linnehan responded "that it was good for Sssss to `have a man around'" [EN 9/8/92 report at 7, para. 7].
21. By Robyn not revealing the truth of her living arrangements and the de facto dissolution of her marriage to Michael Sylvia, and by Newberger not looking for alternative hypotheses for Sssss's alleged behavior -- according to Robyn -- Newberger concluded that Linnehan's visitation with his son must not be resumed lest it further traumatize Sssss.\6/
FOOTNOTE 6: Eli Newberger wrote on page 8 of his so-called evaluation that Robyn "noted that Sssss's drawings, for example, have recently once again become full of negative, dark images and monsters, in contrast to the happier depictions in the interval prior to the recent court initiative. The turning point, [Robyn] indicated, was when Sssss was informed by his former therapist, Mr. Reuben Ferreira, that Sssss's visitations with his father would be reinstated." (Compare these facts to those in paragraph 39.)
22. To Jack McCarthy, another court-appointed therapist, who rubber-stamped Newberger's deficient evaluation and predetermined conclusions, Robyn said nothing of her separation and stormy marriage, but claimed that Sssss felt distrustful and betrayed from the past and therefore could not continue therapy with McCarthy [JM 3/28/94 report].23. Linnehan contends that it was Robyn who was fearful. If she brought Sssss for therapy, her failed marriage and her wanderlust would likely have been exposed by the child Sssss.
24. The purpose of Robyn not telling McCarthy that her marriage had failed was to convince McCarthy that only Linnehan could have been responsible for Sssss feeling betrayed.
26. The purpose of Robyn inventing that story for the divorce court was to convince this court that she should have custody of Justin (Michael Sylvia's child), and Sssss, of whom Sylvia also wanted custody [Michael Sylvia affidavit at 3, para. 2].
28. To her own divorce lawyer, Moira Tierney, Robyn told that Sssss was born out a marital union between herself and James Linnehan: "I assumed complete responsibility for raising [Michael Sylvia's] children and my child from a previous marriage." [Seeparagraph 6 of Robyn's affidavit, filed on 11 July 1994 in the Gerry-Sylvia/Sylvia case in this court. Emphasis supplied.]
29. The purpose of Robyn telling Attorney Moira Tierney that Sssss was a child from a previous marriage was to give an air of dignity and respectability, so that Tierney would zealously fight to defeat Michael Sylvia's claim for the custody of Justin (their child) and Sssss (her child with Linnehan).
30. To Michael Sylvia, her husband, she told that Sssss was born out a marital union between herself and James Linnehan. [There appears to be no document in the divorce file in which Michael Sylvia corrects Robyn's assertion that Sssss was her "child from a previous marriage.
ROBYN FREQUENT MOVING IS THE CAUSE OF SSSSS'S INSTABILITY
32. When Robyn left Maine with Sssss, they were amongst the missing for 10 months until Robyn's parents revealed at their deposition where she and Sssss were living.
33. Robyn moved with Sssss three times while Linnehan was still allowed to see the child. Over time, Robyn and Sssss have lived at [10 RESIDENCES]:
(5) at 12 Old Pierce Road, North Dartmouth, with Michael Sylvia and his and their children for perhaps two years and then moved out with Sssss and Justin in 1991 [Michael Sylvia's affidavit, in which he complained about not knowing their whereabouts],
34. On page 2 of Michael Sylvia's affidavit filed in the divorce case, he corroborates Linnehan's assertions: "My wife has moved with her son Sssss at least seven or eight times."\7/
FOOTNOTE 7: After their first separation beginning in 1991, the Sylvias have not lived together since 1994.
35. Prior to being permanently deprived of his right to visit with his son, Linnehan was not given an opportunity to cross-examine Robyn OR interview Sssss on the issues in his case.36. Specifically the cause of complaints allegedly made by Sssss and communicated to Salt by Robyn were (a) attributed to Linnehan and (b) believed by Salt because (c) Robyn lied: for example, (d) Robyn said that Sssss at 6 years of age believed that the therapist (Ferreira) conspired with Linnehan so that Linnehan could take him to his house, and (e) Robyn "stressed" to Salt that "her husband Michael is very important to Sssss and that Michael treats her son as if he were his own." [CS report at 2; also 15].
39. Specifically Salt himself lied in that report of 5 January 1992 to Judge Harper: he wrote that Reuben Ferreira had acknowledged that Sssss's visiting Linnehan "might well be detrimental." Linnehan now understands that Salt's statement was false because Salt never spoke to Ferreira.
41. Newberger wrote his preliminary findings and sent them in to Attorney Deborah Wolf, Sssss's court-appointed attorney [see letter from Newberger to Wolf, dated 11 May 1992].
FOOTNOTE 9: Attorney Wolf clearly has not acted in Sssss's best interests and should be replaced with another appointed counsel. FOOTNOTE 10: Clearly, neither Atty. Fleury nor McCarthy knew about Robyn and Michael's stormy divorce, and took no cognizance that Sssss's problems -- if he did have them -- may very well have arisen from animosity permeating his home environment since the Sylvia's marriage . . . and NOT arising from anything Linnehan did.
56. Moreover, the defendant, Robyn, is still embroiled in the divorce from Michael Sylvia ["Michael"], who was a widower with two children at the time he married Robyn, then pregnant for a second time out of wedlock. (When Robyn Gerry birthed Sssss, she was unwed. When she later married, she became Robyn Gerry Sylvia. She is now evidently using the surname Gerry-Sylvia.)59. After Robyn and Michael's second separation, Sssss -- James Linnehan's biological son -- went on one Saturday afternoon to visit Michael, with whom Sssss had lived sporadically until 1994 but had come to know as his dad.
60. When Sssss returned home, Robyn punished him.
61. Since Sssss's visit to Michael, Robyn has since forbidden Sssss to see Michael.
63. Sssss is now being denied not only only his biological dad but also his stepdad.\11/
FOOTNOTE 11: Sssss, too, has had a constitutionally protected interest in being with his biological father. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; M.G.L.A. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 10.
64. Upon information and belief, Sssss, who is now 15 and who had previously been alienated from him by his mother, is ready now to scrutinize how he became alienated from his bio dad.65. Neither Newberger nor anyone else who performs thorough work has done a follow-up of Robyn Gerry-Sylvia or Sssss Linnehan.
FOOTNOTE 14: The denial occurred despite earlier recommendations to the court by New Bedford Child and Family Services psychologists and case managers in favor of visitation between Linnehan and his son Sssss.
72. Not only where there was no medical or psychiatric evidence or any clear and convincing evidence\16/ against James Linnehan, where he was not examined as to his suitability or fitness to visit with his son,\17/ where he has been denied the right to visit or share in the custody of his child since 1992 until the present based both on Eli Newberger's preliminary findings in his letter of May 1992 and his deficient report [Exhs. A-D], but also where the accusations by the defendant mother of the child now can be seen as a pattern of false allegations, where Robyn's conduct of alienating Sssss from any father can be now seen as an intentional pattern of alienating the child from any father -- biological and stepfather -- there is adequate demonstration of a substantial change of circumstances mandating that the relationship between James Linnehan and his son Sssss be restored and re-established.\18/
2. Make a determination that James Linnehan's state and federal constitutional rights to visitation and to shared legal custody, if not shared legal and sole physical custody, of his son Sssss were denied;
3. Make a determination that James Linnehan has a father's right to unsupervised visitation and to shared custody, if not shared legal and sole physical custody, of his son Sssss under the statutes and state and federal constitutions;
4. Make a determination that James Linnehan has a right to unsupervised visitation and shared legal custody, if not shared legal and sole physical custody, of his son Sssss at this time;
7. Order that, absent any evidence of misconduct by James Linnehan from 1992 to present, James Linnehan has a statutory and constitutional right to unsupervised visits with and shared legal custody, if not shared legal and sole physical custody, of his son Sssss without further psychological examination;
8. Order that James Linnehan have extensive and reasonable unsupervised visits with and shared legal custody, if not shared legal and sole physical custody, of his son Sssss at this time;
9. Because of the long delay of the right of the father to visit with his son, order that the initial visit be accommodated by Dr. Reuben Ferreira (Sssss's primary therapist);
10. Order that James Linnehan share legal custody, if not share legal and have sole physical custody, of his son Sssss with the defendant at this time.
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBYN GERRY-SYLVIA IN HER DIVORCE CASE (Robyn Gerry Sylvia v. Michael R. Sylvia Divorce Case)
5. My son, Sssss Linnehan is nine years old and he and his brother Justin are extremely close. Drano #24: Filed by Michael Sylvia in Bristol County Probate & Family CourtAFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL R. SYLVIA IN HIS DIVORCE CASE (Robyn Gerry Sylvia v. Michael R. Sylvia Divorce Case)
Since my wife left with Justin and her son Sssss on June 30, 1994 I haven't son Justin although I've repeatedly asked to see him. I am devastatd and so lonely without Justin and Sssss, as are my two children. Drano #25: Filed by Robyn Gerry-Sylvia in Bristol County Probate & Family CourtRegarding Sssss Linnehan, I know I am no blood relation but he has lvf with me since he with three (3) years old. His biological father has had no involvement with him and I am the ony father figure he has ever known. I would gladly have him live with me as well.
Complaint (Robyn Gerry Sylvia V. Michael R. Sylvia Divorce Case)
Sssss's name does not appear in this file.
Drano #26: Published in the Haverhill Gazette, August 3-9, 2000
Obituary of a Grandfather Who Longed to See His Grandson Before He Died . . . AND THE LETTER OF THE PSYCHOLOGIST WHO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF GRANDPARENTS' VISITATION
Addressed to Whom It May Concern, formerly believed to have been filed in court, but not on any docket sheet; now believed to have been sent to Deborah Wolf, who then distributed it
Sssss's name does not appear in this file.
Drano #28: Jim's Family Pictures
Sssss's name appears in the captions.
Drano #31: Filed in United States District Court
Linnehan's Opposition and Combined Memorandum in Support of His Opposition to Children's Hospital's and Eli Newberger's Motion to Dismiss
Sssss's name does not appear in this file.
Drano #32: Filed in United States District Court
Linnehan's Opposition and Memorandum in Support of Opposition to John McCarthy's Motion to Dismiss
James Linnehan's son Sssss was born out of wedlock on 9 February 1985. By 1986, the unwed couple was in court over custody and visitation. When Sssss was a little over two years old, his mother, Robyn Gerry, left Maine with him while a Maine-court order allowing Linnehan visitation was in effect. After 10 months, Linnehan found them in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Drano #34: Juvenile Court Judge Lawton's Order of Impoundment of Materials Being Sued on in Federal Court.Literally one day after the mediation in Maine stalemated as to the visitation issue, Robyn made an appointment at New Bedford Child and Family Services with Defendant Eileen Kern [Complaint, par. 12], who shortly thereafter filed with DSS a 51A report of suspected emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of Sssss. [Compl, par. 128.] Kern's role as a reporter was unknown to Linnehan, for, as Kern wrote, DSS never reveals who the mandated reporter is [Kern Mot. at n. 2], making Kern's identity unknown to Linnehan and available only upon accidental discovery.\7/
FOOTNOTE 7: Linnehan was not given the opportunity to rebut and cross-examine Kern on her report. Adding insult to the deprivation of constitutional due process is that Kern never interviewed Linnehan and never met him before or after she recommended that he be denied visitation with his son. Kern's sources were Sssss's mother and the 3-year-old toddler, who spoke of kitties and toy dinosaurs and Batman and Robin and to whom Kern irresponsibly and outrageously read a sex-abuse-filled comicbook named "Spiderman."
And at the Collis Center, during May and June 1988, Sandra Fyfe, a then-unlicensed caseworker, met with Sssss and Robyn, while the Executive Director, Thomas Tanguay, a licensed social worker, met with Linnehan. (Linnehan never did meet or even know who Fyfe was until her name appeared in Salt's report.)Salt filed his report on 1 July 1988 (back-to-back with Fyfe's report). He drew no negative conclusion from Robyn having left Maine with Sssss while a court order allowing Linnehan visitation was in effect [CS depo at 13-17], and insisted that Robyn had "justification" to disobey the Maine court order [id. at 15, lines 7 and 4] by fleeing and hiding with Sssss in Massachusetts [id. at 16].
To Christopher Salt, Robyn claimed to have "no live-in boyfriend" [CS 7/1/88 report at 25], but Salt knew this to be untrue, viz., Salt knew that Robyn and Sssss shared an apartment for about three months with Joseph Fitzgerald, who was the tenant of record [id. at 17]. Robyn and the divorced Fitzgerald, Salt wrote, "dated a few times and have remained good friends" [id.] and with the exception of Mr. Fitzgerald who baby-sat Sssss, "there appears to be no significant males in [Sssss's] life other than Mr. Linnehan" [id. at 25].
Thus Salt's conclusion that Linnehan had to be the perpetrator of the suspected sexual abuse because there was no male around except Linnehan and because Sssss feared men was specious [CS 7/1/88 report at 25; CS depo at 28].\4/
For the next three years, the court and the caseworkers held carrots on a stick in front of Linnehan to get him to go to a therapist. It was promised, If you go, you'll get visitation with Sssss. In retrospect, these games were nothing but obscenely cruel jokes. FOOTNOTE 4: In fact, Robyn and Sssss lived in a multifamily building where three other males also lived, one of whom lived next door with her best girlfriend. The complaints cited by Salt were communicated to Salt not by Sssss but by Robyn (who years later also falsely accused her then-husband of child sexual abuse). Salt irrationally accepted as truth Robyn's assertion that Sssss at 6 years of age believed that his therapist (Ferreira) conspired with Linnehan so that Linnehan could take him to his house.
FOOTNOTE 8: Salt found that Michael was important to Sssss. Not in Salt's 5 January 1992 report, however, is that Robyn and Michael Sylvia had been separated in 1991 because their marital relationship was stormy and the home environment damaging to all the children [Robyn's affidavit, paragraph 8, and Michael Sylvia's affidavit, unnumbered paragraphs on pages 1-3]. The two affidavits were filed in Bristol County Probate & Family Court Docket No. 94D-1058-D1, Robyn Gerry-Sylvia v. Michael R. Sylvia. The divorce, filed on 28 June 1994, is still active and pending. Specifically Salt himself lied in that report of 5 January 1992 to Judge Harper: he wrote that Reuben Ferreira acknowledged that Sssss's visiting Linnehan "might well be detrimental." Salt's statement was false because Salt never spoke to Ferreira, and Ferreira was in favor of visitation.
A third assessment was suggested by Attorney Deborah Wolf (Sssss's attorney). Linnehan was against it because Sssss had already been interviewed an excessive number of times. Eventually be was Shanghai-ed into signing a stipulation of agreement with the proviso that it would be a "psychological evaluation" of both Robyn and Linnehan and that Sssss would not be re-interviewed. It was to be conducted by Newberger. It was then February 1992. The report issued on 8 September 1992, not May 1992 as Newberger and the hospital alleged on page 2 of their briefs.
Linnehan was upset when Newberger's focus was on Sssss rather than on the reasonable goal of bringing father and son together again.
FOOTNOTE 10: By the time Newberger saw Sssss, it is likely that the child's memory had been irreversibly contaminated.
Too, Linnehan parents began their "grandparents" case in 1992 (No. 92D-1660-GP1). It ended in March 1999, when his enneagenarian's parents were denied visitation with their grandson Sssss. That event triggered Linnehan's complaint about Newberger to the Board of Registration of Medicine.
Judicial Order.
Drano #37: Letter to Judge Mark E. Lawton about Order to Impound Reports of Social Workers, Psychologists, and Eli Newberger-Childrens Hospital and Certain Documents on This Website
Comments on the failure of service and assorted rule violations. Drano #39: Filed in United States District CourtPLAINTIFFS' BRIEF ON (1) COURT'S AUTHORITY TO RETAIN JURISDICTION, (2) DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST ELI NEWBERGER, (3) LINNEHAN'S SURREPLY TO DEFENDANT McCARTHY'S REPLY TO LINNEHAN'S OPPOSITION TO HIS MOTION TO DISMISS
A brief primarily on the inapplicability of the domestic relations exception to the federal court action. * * * * * The First Amendment is broad as is the caselaw in Massachusetts. My website as a whole has several purposes, as I wrote in my response to the Pane complaint. I'll repeat them here:
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.
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