#90B, Part II -- Drano Series
|
|
Count 2 of Bar Counsel's Petition for Discipline of Barb
and
Her Side of the Story Interwoven
in Blue
A Battle in the War between Barb
and
the Office of Bar Counsel and the Board of Bar Overseers
The Board of Bar Overseers is the adjudicatorial arm. General Counsel of the BBO reports to the Board.
The Office of Bar Counsel is the prosecutorial arm.
Bar Counsel of the BBO reports to the SJC.
However, before a Petition for Discipline is sent out,
the OBC needs the approval of the BBO.
Barb's Official Answer to the Bar may be found at drano90-barbs-answer-to-obc-petition-for-discipline.htmCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS______________________
BAR COUNSEL B.B.O. File No. C2-01-0091
Petitioner C2-01-0090
C2-00-0078
v. C2-98-0580BARBARA C. JOHNSON
Respondent
______________________PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE
AND
DRAFT ANSWER TO PETITION INTERWOVEN IN BLUE
WITH JURY DEMANDCount II
45. Paragraphs 2 through 5 are realleged and incorporated by reference.
45. No answer is required.46. Between about October and December 1999, respondent advertised a pricing schedule on her web site for her "consulting services" as follows:A. $1.00 per page or $50 per hour for document review;47. From about October through December 1999, the respondent did not advertiseB. $75-$125 per hour for editing of pleadings already written;
C. $125 per hour for drafting of pleadings not to be filed in the respondent's name;
D. $200 per hour for preparation of written strategy recommendations following document review, telephone calls with present or previous attorneys, legal research, and writing memoranda of law.
46. Respondent has no independent memory of her price structure during that time period and calls upon Petitioner to prove the same.
on her web site or otherwise notify clients or prospective clients of charges for telephone calls with them or for reading, answering or writing e-mail or other correspondence.47. Respondent denies that she does not tell visitors to the website or "prospective clients of charges for telephone calls with them or for reading, answering or writing e-mail or other correspondence." Respondent finds Bar Counsel's accusation as quite frivolous and demonstrative both of a failure to use due diligence in bringing this alleged fact forward and of an insidious ulterior motive in bringing this count in the petition.48. As of October 1999, Richard Parker (a pseudonym) was under indictment forIn fact, Respondent has considerable information on her website regarding fees for "non-clients: as well as "prospective clients." For instance,
(a) a pricing structure appears at the following links. On that page, Respondent describes fees for(i) Fee-based Information Without Legal Representation, including fees for answers to questions by emailhttp://www.falseallegations.com/pricing.htm#Simple Questions
(ii) Fee-based Consulting Services -- This is NOT legal representation, and
http://www.falseallegations.com/pricing.htm#Consulting services
(iii) Fee-based Legal Services
http://www.falseallegations.com/pricing.htm#Legal Representation
(b) five files containing attorney-client fee agreements are identified and linked in the box below. The fee agreements are modeled after the agreement recommended by a committee headed by Attorney Camille Sarouf and published in the Lawyers Weekly in the late '80s or early '90s. Prior to the publication, Respondent was using the form, which had been given to her by Anthony Tarricone or Sarouf when she studied under them in law school. The model presumed a multi-attorney firm. Respondent's form was revised to be practical for use use by a sole-practitioner. Two of the files are samples showing how to fill out hourly- and contingent-fee agreements, Three are forms to be downloaded if the visitor is becoming a client.
http://www.falseallegations.com/agr-hour.htm
Last updatedSunday, 08-Oct-2000 02:12:50 EDT.10. It is understood and agreed that the hourly time charge for legal services includes, but is not limited to, the following: Court appearances (including travel time to and from Court); conferences; telephone calls; correspondence; legal research and writing; depositions; drafting and filing legal documents; reading and reviewing of file materials and preparation for any Court hearings and trial. Telephone calls and correspondence shall be billed at a minimum rate of one-quarter of one hour.http://www.falseallegations.com/agr-hr-2.htm
http://www.falseallegations.com/agr-cont.htm
Last updatedSunday, 08-Oct-2000 02:12:46 EDT.9. In any event, the Client is liable for all reasonable expenses and disbursements of the Firm and shall reimburse the Firm for such amounts.http://www.falseallegations.com/agr-cnt2.htm9. In any event, the Client is liable for all reasonable expenses and disbursements of the Firm and shall reimburse the Firm for such amounts.http://www.falseallegations.com/agr-cnt3.htm8. In any event, the Client is liable for all reasonable expenses and disbursements of the Firm and shall reimburse the Firm for such amounts.http://www.falseallegations.com/disclaim.htm
NOTE The Office of Bar Counsel disguised in Count II the name of the party with the fee dispute, but failed to disguise in Count III the name of my client who was seriously victimized by the courts in an ongoing manner, for whom we sought the help of the Office of Bar Counsel, but for whom we did not receive any attention at all.I dislike the dual standard based on retaliation. Therefore to respond to the Petition, I shall use, for the sake of consistency, the pseudonyms in the "answer" to the petition, but in the supporting documentary evidence I shall NOT change the real names into the pseudonyms supplied by the OBC/BBO. In any case, the OBC's pseudonyms are foolish. One of the fake male names they chose is the same as the real name of his attorney. Richard Simons (real) and Richard Parker (fake), so when writing a sentence, it ends up being Richard and Richard. Too awkward for me and for any of the readers.
Given that Deb Sano gave me implicit, if not explicit, permission to use the Sanos' story on my "excellent educational website" (to quote her) , I shall have no perfunction in identifying Deb Sano as Deb Sano.
Since I had already changed the mentally challenged woman's real name into a pseudonym -- even though (a) she has no friends outside the community controlled by the Department of Mental Retardation, (b) the DMR folks have already spread the allegations around that community, and (c) her real name was bandied about in the criminal-law community two years ago.
I shall use, however, a pseudonym for my client in Count III. She is a businesswoman. In extremely bad taste, the OBC used her real name, even knowing its Petition and my Answer would be public.
This means that I am
Clearly the OBC was playing favorites. CONNECTIONS, CONNECTIONS, CONNECTIONS, that's what it is all about, Ladies and Gentlemen, CONNECTIONS. The Sanos were represented by a retired judge and his son and my other client had no political connections whatsoever.- identifying the Parkers (in Count II) as the Sanos (previously identified in Drano Series #84) and
- using a pseudonym for my client in Count III in both the OBC's Petition and my Answer. Interestingly this client sought help from the OBC years ago during her case but did NOT get any help whatsoever from the OBC. Her complaint was virtually ignored.
The people in Count I were, of course, first identified in the Drano Series a few years ago.
rape and indecent assault and battery on a mentally retarded person. The alleged victim was Richard's adult daughter, Sarah Parker (a pseudonym).48. Respondent denies as written. "Richard Parker," a retired school teacher of Japanese extraction, was facing four -- not two, as Bar Counsel avers -- indictments for attacking his daughter "Sarah" in the shower and for burning her while in a car with a cigarette, as well as raping her twice. He and his family prefer NOT to call Sarah mentally retarded. They prefer to say she was "mentally challenged" from "a series of massive strokes which left her with partial paralysis and serious learning disorders and a serious lack of language skills."49. As of October 1999, Sarah was living in a residential placement under the supervision of the Massachusetts Department of Mental Retardation (DMR). The DMR had initiated a protective services action for Sarah on account of the allegations against Richard. Richard and Mary Parker (a pseudonym), Richard's wife and Sarah's mother, were then barred from all contact with Sarah by a restraining order entered in the protective services action.49. Respondent denies as written. The Parkers' troubles began in 1992, seven years earlier than Bar Counsel avers. Just weeks after Sarah left the Parkers' home to live in Specialized Home Care, "complaints" were made, parental access to Sarah was restricted, and resolition did not occur until mid 1994. The events of 1999 and the history of events are far more complex than Bar Counsel has written.50. At all relevant times, Richard was represented by Attorney Richard Simons on the criminal chaiges against him.Respondent has been threatened by the Assistant Bar Counsel not to reveal the history on the grounds of confidentiality and privacy, but given that the Bar Counsel is taking action based on a revised and limited factual history in order to diminish the value of the Respondent's services, Respondent will be uploading to her website the entire history of the family as it appears in emails between the family and Respondent.
50. Respondent has insufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of ¶50 and calls upon Petitioner to prove the same.51. At all relevant times, Richard and Mary were represented by Simons and Attorney Karen Schultz Breda in connection with the adult protective services action.51. Respondent has insufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of ¶51 and calls upon Petitioner to prove the same. That which Mary wrote in many emails to Respondent about Breda's representation of them is in the box below. Breda appeared to be both a courier of messages between various persons and a supervisor for visitation purposes.52. The Parkers denied any misconduct toward Sarah. They suspected that Sarah might have been sexually abused by someone else at her residential placement.
Karen Schultz-Breda, Newton Ma (phone number deleted) Karen is our niece and is representing us, (sisters' names, towns, and phone numbers deleted) in the dealings with Attorney Timothy Carlson, temporary guardian. Karen assisted us in 1992 and in 1998, the other 2 investigations. Karn has schedulled a phone conference with me tomorrow night at 7:30 as she is due to have a conference with Attorney Carlso and Attorney Simons tomorrow.
Another day when nothing has happened with Karen, Rich and Tim. As it is now after 9 I can only assume Karen is not going to call and nothing has been done.
Still have had no word from Karen, Rich, or Tim Carlson.
Still no word from Tim or Karen and the girls have not been able to contact Sarah week.
Karen had been working with Tim on the restraining order and Tim told Karen of the intensification of the investigation and of DR cantanzaro's report. Not content but of existance.
I have asked for Pic of Sarah when Karen picks her up, photos of contents of luggage. We have stated that we will foot bill for a rental car for Karen as her AH of a husband will not permit her the use of the new car. We refuse to permit Karen to jeopardize her life, her son's life of Sarah's by driving a substandard vehicle. With what is it going to cost us what is another couple hundred at this point. ( My body is not dead yet)
No excuse but we have been in "lala land" How could this happen? We did nothing wrong. We are innocent. Karen did the research on Attorneys and we picked what we could afford, before we knew all the facts. I am not sure Karen knew the seriousness of the situation. We chose what we could afford. Our mistake. Could be a costly one. If it is in money only then a good lesson. If in other things then a very HARD LESSON.
Is Karen available this weekend? I do not know. She is in an extremely abusive situation. As of Dec 1 we will be hiding her and son Joseph from her husband. not at our house but at a place only we know of.
Have combined both messages to reply to. We are not sure just how much questioning they can do. Think it has to be spontaneous from Sarah. Then Karen and [other daughter] need to put all the expertise, tact what ever you call it in to action. "Do not want to lead witness" and be faced with witness tampering. Understand that is the reason they will not let Sarah have unsupervised visits with any family member.
Tim Carlson has enough confidence in Karen that she is to be supervisor.
Tough job.
[Sister] called Karen, Karen called Carson. Carlson's reaction was that this whole thing was orchestrated by Elaine" And he was angry.
Friday, Nov 19, 1999, Sarah was scheduled to meet with Carlson at 11 AM.
[Sister] called Sarah at workshop, and had no trouble getting through to Sarah. Sarahwas psyched to go to Sam's. Great conversation with Sarah.11 am , Sarah met with Carlson and she was psyched to go to Sam's. Next was call from [another sister] at 6PM all is set for Thanksgiving. Sarah is to go with Karen from Wed thru Sat and if "Sarah wants thru Sun. We will deal with Elaine after the fact." I am told these are Carlson's words.
Plan is for Karen to leave Newton at 10AM. Pick up Sarah by noon and then go to NJ. [Sister] has promised a call when they arrive and word from Karen is that if Sarah wants to talk to me she will let her. Can only hope. We are leaving at 6 to go to (town deleted) to [a sister's]. Will be home by 8 Thanksgiving night to rest for "Black Friday" in retail.
Did you get a hold of Karen. She didn't return ours. [Sister] just spoke to her and told her we needed to talk to her.
Sorry to bother you but I need to vent big time. That miserable bitch is still in control. [Sister] just called and Karen and Sarah are in NJ. One hell of a week. Last Friday Sarah was anxious to go and couldn't wait. EW had her for weekend and convinced her she didn't want to go. As of Monday it was off. Karen has spent time convincing Carlson it was the best thing for Sarah. It was agreed that it could be a wed - dark on Friday. With the understanding that if Sarah wanted to stay longer she could. Karen arrived at Carlson's office at 1. He kept her until 3 and then they
picked up Sarah Didn't leave Pittsfield till after 3:30. That bitch only sent enough meds thru noon on Friday. When the hell does she loose her control? I am not sure how much we can piss Carlson off if Sarah wants to stay. Am sure we could get her meds through Sunday. Is this nightmare ever going to end? To late tonight for them to do anything and they will have to leave by noon on Friday to get back in time. As far as I know Karen is planning to stay here Friday night but who knows.We are at wits end.
I try to tell [Richard] that this is one more thing in our favor but it is getting very hard to believe and I am becoming less and less convincing.
Sorry but I just had to vent to someone.
Karen and Sarah got back last night about 4. Karen tried to get hold of Carlson before they left NJ as Sarah wanted to stay but she could not reach him.
Karen spent night with us and we learned a few things.
1. It was Carlson who decided last Monday that he wasn't comfortable with Sarah going to [Sister's] for Holiday.
Reason: Sarah was going with an opposing attorney. (Karen has been representing Us and the girls.Understand DA didn't want it at all and Carlson went over their head.
As we understand it Karen was forced to withdraw as our attorney in order for Carson to permit Sarah to go with her.Karen did that. They had a great time. Carlson is still worried about "witness tampering" Sorry but give me a break. We have done everything they wanted from the git go why does he think we will change now. He cannot or will not see that EW is doing just what he is afraid we will do. The problem is that the state has no place for Sarah to go is she has to leave Elaine's and they haven't made an effort to try.
Where does that put us? Karen's opinion was that Hoose should do both civil and criminal. Karen is also afraid that the judge will not permit the civil to move forward before the criminal case. Her feelings are that the judges involved and Carlson have already convicted us. She was not happy when I stated that I would not pay Carson's bill. Claims Carlson truly cares for Sarah but he refuses to be alone with her. Probably fear that someone will file a complaint against him. Yet in the next breath she said Carlson was going to take Sarah to see [sister]and new baby in hospital on the 9th. My comment. Screw him, we are going to be there. They have taken away everything else, they will not deny us that. If he shows up then it is on his head that Sarah got to see both her parents. Plus the fact that [sister] is going to be less than cordial at the thought of Carson visiting her hours after giving birth. That means an unsupervised visit with [sister]. "a chance for witness tampering again" Christmas is up in the air as well. Karen has volunteered to have it at her house with everyone but [Richard]. I am adamant, that I will not leave him alone during the holiday. We will make other arrangements. Poor Sarah doesn't have a clue as to what is going on. She just likes the attention and she isn't getting it from EW.
She has spoken with him(last April) and is very comfortable with him.
She was impressed with his statement that [Richard] should have a poly ASAP(last April).She has been trying to convince Simon of that and it only recently that he agreed.
Reason: Simons didn't believe it would go this far. (I thought we were the only ones in denial)
Asked Karen outright about Simons inability to work with a "female" particularly a pushy one, No hesitation at all in her reply. Simons is very comfortable with [Richard] but he doesn't know how to handle me. I intimidate him. He just doesn't know how to deal with me. Pardon me, but I have very little respect for any male I intimidate. He cannot know who he is or what he is doing. I don't have the law degree, he does. All I am doing is looking for information. If he doesn't like my style then let him tell me to butt out or bug off or just plain shut up but DO NOT IGNORE ME. This is not the first time I have heard this. From the onset Karen has said that Simons will coach or prepare [Richard] but he wants no part of me. That was to be Karen's job.
Before giving Karen any of our correspondence I asked her if she knew you.
She told me exactly the same things you had written in last message, She will be contacting Hoose and you in the near future.
Also found out that her husband has agreed to counseling(finally) and they have been going. So we have no major hideout this week. I hope it works for everyone's sake.
As for Dec 9, 1999, we could meet later in the day. But we still have e hour drive after we leave you and we have to be at work Friday morning. The earliest we could leave on the 8th is 5:30. That would get us to Andover by 9. Not late for you and I but definitely for [Richard]. He turns to a pumpkin by 10:30. To say nothing about the hour we might reach (town deleted). I may be able to work something out where we could leave GB at 1 on the 8th. Options are there, we just need to know.
Enough already from me. 1 more day and then we can get something into action I hope.
She [Karen] hasn't submitted her withdrawal yet. She was to do that Monday.
...
So far only me and thee think he[Carlson] has a conflict of interest. I still think that the state has him in their back pocket. Other than my 3 hour visit with him and Karen the day before the incitements came down he has made no effort to talk with us or anyone else in Sarah'ss history "before the state" he sure as H cannot be the one to ask Karen to withdraw.
Karen may, on her own decide not to put in her withdrawal but at the time it was what she had to do to get Sarah to NJ for the holiday.
...
Not impression I got. Reason [Karen] want's Hoose to do both is because she is going to withdraw at Carson's request so that takes her out of the picture.
If Karen doesn't call you please keep trying her, She is a dear and a very competent attorney just that life has dealt her a bad hand at the moment.
Pumpkin time. I need to be fresh and alert in the AM
Told you that I had a brief conversation with Sarah a Thanksgiving night. Carlson had no problem with that as Sarah asked to speak with me. Got a call from [Sister] last Friday night. She had gotten a call from Karen. A complaint was made to DPPC that [Sister] had emotionally abused Sarah Thanksgiving night because she had forced Sarah to talk to me. [Another sister] was so furious that she called Carlson directly and spoke with him for 45+ minutes. She made quite a few good points.
. . .
Karen called today. She went into far more detail. Seems that the
investigator from DPPC spent 2 hours with Carlson. Carlson is very definitely on our side now. EW has been given the rope and she is hanging herself. Right now she is in Maine on a "family emergency"?
The actual complaint filed was that [Sister] had forced Sarah to get on the phone and both R and I spoke with Sarah and we told her "-uck you" along with other expletives. Karen is to meet with the investigator this week and it is the feeling that the complaint will be summarily dismissed.Karen has also been in contact with Simons, who is -ull -shit. According to Karen he feels that this whole case is a figment of EW, who is a very sick controlling -itch. Simons volunteered to go to court and present what everis necessary so Sarah can spend X-mas with family if Carlson does not.
Do we dare hope that given this additional information R's case may be thrown out?R has a meeting at 10 tomorrow with Simons, alone, but I have coached him well.
We will be forever grateful for your help and concern. You have given us great hope and re-instilled out courage to fight.
Guess you and I are just pushy broads and there are a lot of insure men out there who can't handle us.
52. Respondent has sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of ¶52.53. In or about October 1999, Mary was referred to the respondent's web site as a source of assistance in disputing false accusations of child rape or sexual abuse.53. Respondent has insufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of ¶53 and calls upon Petitioner to prove the same.54. On or about October 31, 1999, Mary contacted the respondent for assistance in contesting the criminal charges against Richard, restoring contact with Sarah, and protecting Sarah from any further abuse.54. Respondent denies the facts as written in ¶54 and calls upon Petitioner to prove the same.55. Mary made her initial contact with the respondent by e-mail. Thereafter, virtually all her communications with the respondent were by e-mail correspondence. The respondent encouraged this exchange of e-mail communications.55. Respondent admits that "Mary made her initial contact with the respondent by e-mail." Respondent admits that most of "all her communications with the respondent were by e-mail correspondence." Mary and her husband phoned Respondent on occasion. Respondent denies that she "encouraged this exchange of e-mail communications." Mary compulsively wrote Respondent about every communication she had with her family, for example, her four daughters, her niece Karen, other lawyers. The correspondence supplied to the Weisberg speaks for itself. It shall be uploaded to Respondent's website at56. On about October 31 and November 1, 1999, Mary informed the respondent about, among other things, Sarah's disabilities and placements, the allegations and criminal charges against Richard, the no-contact order against her and Richard, and their legal representation by Simons and Breda. Mary told the respondent that she and her family considered the allegations against Richard to be false and that they feared for Sarah's safety.http://www.falseallegations.com/drano84a-annotated-sano-bill.htm
THE BACKGROUND 10/31/99 MARY : Please we need help. We are in a fight for our life and for the survival of our family. This is but a brief history of what is happening.
At the age of 15 months our youngest daughter had a series of massive strokes which left her with partial paralysis and serious learning disorders and a serious lack of language skills. For 25 years she lived with us and her sisters in a very close knit loving family. She went to school, to camp(same camp for 15 years), to workshop and there was never any complaint or question, or even a hint that something terrible might be going on.
As her sisters left, she too wanted to move on. As she will always be in need of a "guardian angel" we went to the state for help.
In May 1992, she left our home to live in Specialized Home Care. At the request of the state we limited our visits and contacts for the "adjustment" period. 6 weeks later the first complaint was filed to DPPC. It was never properly investigated and we did not know what the charges were until 10 months later. But we were restricted in our visits. At that time the report from DPPC was that the allegations were not substantiated and the case was closed.
After 2 years she was placed in another home.
From there things began going down hill. We were not advised of many things going on with our daughter and when we questioned we were investigated again. A proper investigation was done and we were cleared as we had had no contact with her at the time of the alleged incident. And now this. On March 2, 1999 we met with the social worker and case coordinator about concerns we had about the treatment and condition of our daughter. 8 days later a complaint was made to DPPC accusing sexual and physical abuse. We knew nothing until April 14, 1999 and on April 16, 1999 we were served with a restraining order. A guardian et litem was appointed and now he has been appointed temporary guardian. Not only her parents but all members of the family. Her sisters have seen her twice. The first meeting in July was disastrous, she is so over medicated at this point it is a threat to her health.
Her father has been indited and arraigned on 4 counts of rape and abuse. After scouring your wonderful site this horror story is just getting worse. Everything that could be done wrong has been. We have not seen our daughter since Feb 16, 1999 and chances are slim to none that we will get to her in the near future and perhaps never. After talking with our attorneys we feel that we have already been convicted and yet at no time has anyone in the last 7 years taken a family history or even discussed this with us. Our daughter remains in the same house where she has been. If in fact, she has been sexually abused then she should be in protective custody from all who have had contact with her and not just her family. There are many reasons to believe her current placement may be an abusive situation. This comes from DPPC's Behavior of Caregiver/Abuser. Our rights, the family's rights, our daughters rights have all been violated. We just do not know where to go from here.
We have spent hours and hours going over all the reports from the Grand Jury and finding errors, incorrect testimony and in some cases outright lies. We have proof to refute what has been said but no one wants to listen. We are just told that our daughter said..... We know she did not because she does not have the physical ability to speak as they claim. Due to her brainjury she is very easily influenced and she quite frequently says "yes" when she means "no" and vice versa. She is and has been continually influenced by her caregiver and the state employees who work with her.
The emotional stress on everyone in the family is all most unbearable. We are a strong family and we will survive but we will also pay a price. I know that one of our other girls contacted you earlier and that you tried to respond. She is a full time teacher, the mother of 2 & 4 year sons and another baby due in a month and just has not had time to do anything. How do we fight this nightmare? How do we get our daughter out of this situation? Thank you for your time and for listening.
11/6/ 99 Dear Mrs Johnson,
I've just finished reading all the info my mother (dsano)and you exchanged and i'm a litle confussed You refered to both cases What are the two cases i was under the impression that there was only a criminal case against my father or were you refering to the civil action my sister amber is supposed to put into action when she gets back from vacation . I am Sarah's other Half , since she first came home (before the Strokes) we were together she had to do everything i did. with less than two years apart we were very close.when she came home the second time we became closer Sarah and I became "we" we did everything together from taking naps to climbing trees,(even with one arm not much stopped her) we did it all the only time she and i were apart was when she went to camp and when we went to school other wise we were together . I still say we because she is a part of me .. we talk with out the need for words before she moved into elaine's house she would tell me everything when you read what is said some is true Sarah does over drammatizes her injuries which is why i don't by the bite marks She was with me from friday morning at 11:00 when she got off the plane . That was an experence I'llnot soon forget I was a nervous wreck waiting for her plane to land . yet when she got off the airline attendents and the passangers all knew who i was because that was all she talked about "my Sister Sam" if she had been bitten to the point of bruseing and scabs she woould have let the whole world know threat or no threat ..
Because Sarah dosenot comprohend cause and effect so if i were to tell her you can't tell or they will Kill me she would tell but she would say SSSShhhhuuu Kill me . with her fingure over her lips to b Quite. Another Interesting thing is that in the interview with the foresnic Nurse Sarah sayes that she calls for help ... and my mother dials 911 ...well a litle family history is in order we are a fun loving group and yes some would say a litle weird but every action we did taught Sarah a vitle skill such as 911 we used to tese and tickle and run around and play there comming to take me away or some such thing usually mom would be the one we were getting away from but the point being that Sarah thought it was ffun because she got to pick up the phone and go 'Help help help police" in a high squeaky voice . she now adds a hand gesture to that and she does it in jest she did it when playing with my nefews just the other day she has been told that if ANYONE ever did anything to her she was to yell for help and we would call 911 .. which leeds me to my last point is that Sarah can not or dosen't do it very well and that is Past Present and Future They asked her if this Happened Before or after Elaines If i were Sarah i would not know that After ment Durning the time I'm at Elaines Or dose it mean After (when i Move From Elaines) My Guess is that she is Refuring to After she moves from Elaines
Because that is how Sarah works time segments don't work I've told her that i would visit her in two weeks only to get a call in one because Sarah is hestaracal because i did not pick her up she has refused to get on the van because she swears i'm picking her up .. My sister is a very stubborn women when she throws a hissy fit i've learned not to be in stricking distance ... she fighhts dirty and if any one tried to bite her breast you can bet that they did not get away with out damage of there own...so if i can answer or provied any info I'm the family expert on how she works ... She is not working right now there is stress in her voice and an anxious look in her eyes ... like a frighten rabbit .
I want her out of that House and away from that women . She has always corrected me when Sarah and i are talking we always say thing like your weird or strange and elaine corrects me and tells Sarah she is normal ... I'm Scared that Sarah won't make it out in one peice she has already back slided to a point of dependency on other people (the person in charge) that is not Sarah this is a women that rode her bike across a major intersection through down town and out past the town nurseing home because she wanted to go swimming and there was no one to go with her .. I don't buy any of it ... and wish to help.. now i'll leave you to do your work. I wish you could have meet Sarah when she was herself.. she is a shodow that is fading and I don't know what to do with out Her.
THANKS AGAIN FOR ALL YUR HELP
Sarah' s Sister S.56. Respondent admits that Mary did so inform her not only about the facts written in ¶56 but also about other facts not stated by Weisberg.57. On or about November 1, 1999, the respondent advised Mary that she had to review all available documents from the criminal and protective services cases in order to determine whether she could assist the Parkers. The respondent told Mary that her fee would be $1.00 per page for this service.57. Respondent admits that she "advised Mary that she had to review all available documents from the criminal and protective services cases in order to determine whether she could assist the Parkers."58. During about the first week of November 1999, Mary sent the respondent a check for $350 and about 360 pages of documents related to the case. The respondent received the check and documents by about November 8, 1999.Respondent denies that she "told Mary in writing that her fee would be $1.00 per page for this service."
Respondent did, however, receive a phonecall from Mary on 1 November 1999, as noted in her accounting to Mary. Respondent has no independent memory of the phone conversation, it being over three years prior to this writing. It is likely, however, that Respondent told Mary to see her pricing.htm page on her website, but Respondent cannot state that definitively..
58. Respondent admits that she received a check dated 11/4/99 and in the amount of $350. Respondent has no memory of counting the pages of the documents Mary sent, but Mary wrote in her complaint to the Bar that Respondent reviewed "about 500 pages of materials and responding to emails over a 3- week period."59. Between about November I and November 11, 1999, the respondent asked for and received additional information from Mary, answered questions posed by Mary, and provided advice and recommendations to Mary about the criminal and protective services proceedings. The respondent did not tell Mary during this period that there were or would be any additional charge for those services.59. Respondent admits that she "asked for and received additional information from Mary, answered questions posed by Mary, and provided advice and recommendations to Mary about the criminal and protective services proceedings." See the box below ¶65 for the strategy and conclusions of Respondent on the "Parker" case.60. On or about November 11, 1999, the respondent informed Mary that she had completed her review of the Barkers' documents. At that time the respondent provided Mary with additional recommendations. Among other things, the respondent recommended that depositions be taken in the protective services action and that she be retained to take the depositions.Respondent denies that she "did not tell Mary during this period that there were or would be any additional charge for those services." Mary acknowledged having read and signed the fee agreement. All those services are mentioned on the agreement as well as on Respondent's pricing.htm page. It is disingenuous of Bar Counsel and Weisberg to think that a client or potential client would not understand that a lawyer would indeed charge for providing legal or consulting services.
60. Respondent admits.61. In her communication to Mary on November 11, 1999, the respondent told Mary that her total charges for all her services to that point, including reading and reviewing the documents and providing strategy recommendations, amounted to $750 for 15 hours of work at a rate of $50 per hour. The respondent further informed Mary that the Parkers then owed her $400 for those services.61. Respondent admits.62. Mary agreed to those charges and sent the respondent a check for $400. The respondent received that check by about November 16, 1999.62. Respondent admits. The check Respondent received was numbered #5743, dated 11/12/99, and in the amount of $400.63. Between about November 11 and 13, 1999, Mary asked the respondent to clarify certain recommendations. Mary also asked the respondent what she required as a retaining fee for further services. The respondent advised Mary that her fees would depend on such factors as the degree of future participation of the Parkers' existing counsel and the time required for her to take the recommended depositions.63. Respondent admits.64. On or about November 13, 1999, the respondent informed Mary that she would accept an initial retainer of $10,000. That same day, the respondent sent Mary a written fee agreement providing, among other things, for her representation of the Parkers in the criminal and protective services cases at a rate of up to $200 per hour for her legal services.64. Respondent admits.65. At the time that the respondent agreed to the $10,000 retainer and forwarded her fee agreement, she represented to Mary that she would place the retainer in an escrow account, withdraw and apply the funds to pay fees for services actually rendered, and notify the Parkers of the charges through interim and final billings.65. Respondent admits.
11/11/99 RESPONDENT: MARY: Elaines "log" was computer generated after her statement to Thibodeau. Yes, it is Exhibit 1. Included Elaine's statement and the drawing of the left Breast and alleged "bite" marks but couldn't see sending as it was A duplicate in packet we received.
RESPONDENT: Her report makes her extremely vulnerable. There is no mention of Ken in it whatsoever. Given that as I read more Reports/statements, it becomes QUITE clear that Sarah is aggressive in seeking out attention from males. (That's what we are in our 20s; hormones they call it. They weren't destroyed by her shocks!) Her aggression toward David, the van man, her co-worker. Where is Ken in all this. The ". . . sex, Baby" bit . . . Ken?? What is Ken and Elaine's relationship? We don't know that.
A/S/K's statements were fantastic. Kevan made the astute observation that nthing was asked about her current surroundings. I may have noted that lack last night. As Cochran would have said, Rush to judgment. Also, EW fails to give any details about what else Sarah does during the day when not at work. She must be bored stiff. Ditto about Sonny.
MARY: They refused to video tape at least the 1st session with the state police. No mention of tapes for any of the rest of it. But there might be.
RESPONDENT: There are probably no tapes but they should be asked for. Let them say in writing, there are none. . . . Withholding evidence, such as exculpatory dr's report, is a NO NO. . . . In later report says, tear at least one week old. This was a month later than home/Sam visit. EW tries to speculate whether it could be 3 wks old. Trooper said gonorella ratrher than Gardinella. They didn't know what they were dealing with.
MARY: "naughty" is not a word Sarah would use. To many syllables. She has always spoken in mono-syllabic words.
RESPONDENT: Good point. Good to hear that.
RESPONDENT: (That's what we are in our 20s; hormones they call it. They weren't destroyed by her shocks!)
11/11/99 MARY: No they were not and she WAS a nice looking young lady. She was always affectionate. We always felt that she used the hugs and kisses because she did not have the language Her aggression toward David, the van man, her co-worker. RESPONDENT: Where is Ken in all this.
MARY: Who knows! Supposedly he was there. He wanted Sarah to live with them. When Dave and Cathy decided to give up the positions as SHC caregivers, somehow E&KW found out. They had met Sarah at some function to which we were not privy. They knew Sarah needed a home and they approached SHC to have her placed with them. They went shopping for a young lady to have in their house. The first time we visited their home Ken was very adament that they wanted Sarah with them.(Sorry but it sure makes me wonder now.)
The ". . . sex, Baby" bit . . . Ken??RESPONDENT: What is Ken and Elaine's relationship?
MARY: We don't know that. I do not know about their relationship but it is very differnt from ours. They do not vacation together. Elaine goes off to Maine for Holidays. Ken goes hunting with his buddies. We also know of Ken's hunting buddies who have been in the house with Sarah. They all have acess to guns and hunting knives.
RESPONDENT: A/S/K's statements were fantastic. Kevan made the astute observation that nthing was asked about her current surroundings.
MARY: Amber also asked officier Thib. why her father was the only suspect and that she felt that everyone should be suspect. OT response was that she couldn't do anything with the information but pass it on to DA as her job was to investigate "SANO"
RESPONDENT: Also, EW fails to give any details about what else Sarah does during the day when not at work. She must be bored stiff.
MARY: Sarah is. She cannot do any of the things she could do. When Sam and Kev met with her in Oct. they were floored with the fact that Sarah couldn't set the table, dry dishes, put them away. She needed help with everything. When asked what she did "nothing" Did you go to movie "Yes" what did you see "donno"
RESPONDENT: Ditto about Sonny. There are comments in EW "log" about Sonny and haircut. There are probably no tapes but they should be asked for. Let them say in writing, there are none.
MARY: Great point. Never thought of it.
RESPONDENT: Elaine mentions you having wanted to remove Sarah from EW's home. Later they put in all details why.
MARY: That is not accurate. DMR did not like Sarah so far out in the boonies. They wanted her moved closer to work etc. Sarah was happy at EW. It was left and stated in IEP's that when Sarah was ready to move on she would let us know. At thanksgiving 1998, Sarah was not "herself" nor at Xmas. In Feb she expressed to us that she was ready for a move. She also expressed that to Sam while in NJ. We talked to her at great lenghts as did Sam. It was our opinion that she was sincere so we put the wheels in progress. And the "shit hit the fan" You have a copy of our concerns about Sarah and that it was her desire to move on. That is what we discussed with Greg Anderson and Jennifer Kline on March 2nd. JK talked with EW on March 4th. Supossedly aon March 8th Sarah began her tales of horror and on March 8th Elaine called Peg Gallegher at SHC. And here we are.
Good stuffRESPONDENT: (6) They didn't bring support person in with Sarah the second time because she "constrains" Sarah. That IS weird.
MARY: I think Jennifer(the support person) had her concerns that Sarah had been prompted by EW and JK didn't really believe the whole thing. I think JK knows Sarah better than EW. We have asked Simons to get all JK reports as she has seen Sarah once a week from the beginning.
It has been our feeling right along that something happened in EW's house and Sarah was told that it had to be their "secret" If she told she would have to leave and no one wanted her. (supported later by her fears that her sisters didn't want her and we haven't seen her in 268 days and we have not even talked to her in 250 days.) Sarah could NEVER keep a secret and I think she was trying to tell me something had happened on when I talked to her on March 7th.
RESPONDENT: Trooper said gonorella ratrher than Gardinella. They didn't know what they were dealing with.
MARY: This is referred to by EW. Sarah "must" have a sexually transmitted desease.
MARY: What do you require as a retaining fee? RESPONDENT: Depends on how much I have to do. If Simons will be around to argue in court, my price will be less because I won't have to drive out there often. If I only have to go out for depos, I can figure that more closely. I would, of course, attempt to schedule the depos one after another. One good feature is that those we want to interview most are NOT people with busy schedules -- like doctors or accountants or psychs or "therapists," who always give a rough time cuz they postpone billable hours. Is Karen going to be available to argue in probate on the discovery issues, if necessary? I'm thinking that $25,000 would be very reasonable in a case like this. It could run less or more. Unpredictable. If you read what I say below, maybe we can get them to crack early. That, of course, would be wonderful, but it's too early for me to say. I haven't met the other players. Read below. More
explanation. More strategy.MARY: to clarify a couple of things. You speak of civil and criminal. Are you referring to a case filed by Amber and Jeff or something we file?
RESPONDENT: A&B and rape = criminal case (4 counts)
Care and Protection ["C&P"] of Sarah = one civil case out of which the restraining order grew to "protect" Sarah from her parents
Amber/Jeff case = a proposed civil case (You say "filed" Have they filed a case already? If so, what, when. and where?)
Because there is already a civil case in which you are involved, you can conduct discovery. In the C&P case, court "leave" [permission] must be sought and you must have "good cause." Mass. Rule of Civil Procedure 81(a) applies. I've attached three cases for you to read. They explain the court's position on discovery in C&P cases. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
If Amber & Jeff bring a "regular" tort case, the M.R.Civ.P. discovery rules apply and depositions are a matter of course.
In the criminal case against Harry, depositions are ruled by M.R.Crim.P. The rule is called "Depositions to Perpetuate Testimony" and is only allowed under exceptional circumstances "after a showing of materiality and relevance." Used, for instance, when someone is about to die (sickness or infirmity) or when a potential witness is from a state other than Mass.... In crim cases, depos are not for the discovery of information, they are intended only for preserving evidence.
So . . . because it is so difficult to get permission to take a depo in a criminal case, I use a civil case for an excuse to take a depo and then can use the depo to impeach in a criminal case.
We are lucky here -- ironically -- that there is a civil case in which we can take a depo, to wit, the _C&P_of_Sarah_ case. Otherwise, we'd have to hurry and bring another civil case to depose the Dunns and the Wormwoods and Sonny. McCarthy's statement on how to examine was very instructive. Have to get a copy of the SAIDD books. They might even be on Amazon. (The Spiderman sexual abuse book was.)
MARY: When should this be done?
RESPONDENT: Have to think about it. Because I was lucky to find an existing C&P case, the push is less pressing. Although next week, I may decide to push it soon for other reasons. Just didn't have to think about it the last few days because of the existing C&P case.
MARY: Sonny is a severely retarded male. I try not to be prejudiced but he gives me the creeps and Sam also (she is the only other one in family who has met him) RESPONDENT: Yes, his age I discovered ONLY when I began reading YOUR notes. I haven't read all of them yet. (See, I said the holes are more dramatic reading their case first.) As soon as I get off this machine, I will finish them. Also absolutely nothing was said ANYWHERE about Sarah and Sonny living in the basement with a shared bathroom. GADZOOKS!!!!! Net etiquette is constraining my true feeling!
HE'S OLD ENOUGH TO BE HER DADDY. SHE MIGHT MAKE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DAD FOR HARRY AND DADDY FOR SONNY. REMEMBER THE GJ TESTIMONY.
GROSS GROSS NEGLIGENCE by SHC/DMR. Equivalent of INTENTIONAL. They knew or should have known what they were doing. Significant for purposes of overcoming immunity. WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING???????? THIS WAS NOT THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE UNISEX BATHROOM WAS APPROPRIATE!!!! JUST THINK OF HOW RIGHTEOUS I CAN SOUND. A MADE IN HEAVEN CLARENCE DARROW MOMENT. UNFORTUNATELY AT Sarah's EXPENSE!!!!! AND EVERYONE ELSE'S!
WHAT I HAVE DESCRIBED IS THE ROOT OF AN AMBER/JEFF CASE. Know a few reporters who'd jump on this in a minute. It's a damn potential front-page story. BUT WE NEED THE DEPO of SONNY. Might be worth it to take his first so they won't know where we are heading and what we are going to ask _AND_ they will not have had a chance to prepare him.
But is Peg the one who made the placements? Is she the one who determines who has the winning bid????
It's not Sarah's "credibility and/or abilities" in question here, it's SHC's and DMR's credibility which is in question and the failure of them to use their ability to make a proper placement. It was not only gross but grotesque to put her in a room in the basement separated from Sonny's only by a shared bathroom. Wonder if there is a "naughty chair" in it. No wonder Deb and Harry were never allowed to see Sarah's room. In my other email, I discuss, among other factual a legal issues, (1) how inappropriate a unisex bathroom is in this context and (2) the failure of SHC and DMR and law enforcement to check out the possibility of alternative perpetrators. I see several. With a little sleuthing via discovery, we'll highlight the obvious opportunity by those others. One issue which I forgot to mention in the other email is the likelihood that the two indecent A&B's should be dismissed on the basis that the alleged crimes (the shower door incident) took place around June 1984, when Sarah was 15 years old, more than 6 years prior to the indictment on 19 August 1999. The statute of limitations on c. 235 sec. 13F is SIX years. Attorney Simons should have moved for dismissal . . . provided Deb and Harry had told him when the shower incident took place. Proof of that would be the hospital records showing that Sarah was brought in for stitches.
11/13/99 RESPONDENT: I'lve attached an attorney-client agreement. Read it carefully and then feel free to ask any questi