#91, Drano
Series
Barb's Motion for Award of Fees
by Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
for Attorney to Defend Against Charges by Office of Bar Counsel
in Petition for Discipline of BarbA 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.
In 1974, the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court established the Board of Bar, which administers or recommends to the SJC appropriate disciplinary action.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT___________________
BBO NO. C2-01-0091
Bar Counsel BBO NO. C2-01-0090
Petitioner BBO NO. C2-00-0078
v. BBO NO. C2-98-0580Barbara C. Johnson
Respondent
___________________
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
TO DEFEND AGAINST BAR COUNSEL’S PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE
Now comes Respondent Barbara C. Johnson ["Johnson"] and moves this Court for attorney’s fees, the first installment being $50,000.As grounds and in support of this motion, Johnson states the following:
For the above reasons and in the interest of justice, the award is appropriate in the highly unusual circumstances of the three cases: The case detailed first in the petition, although latest in time, is an attempt to squelch Respondent’s First Amendment rights by circumventing the issue of censorship. So in lieu of Bar Counsel seeking an unpopular order to censor Respondent’s popular website, the Bar is using, instead, its enormous power to censure Respondent.
- she is living off her social security,
- her practice consists primarily of pro bono cases in selected circumstances, resulting in a very limited net income,
- the Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss Weisberg ["Weisberg"], who signed the petition on behalf of Bar Counsel, said an attorney would be provided if Respondent could not afford representation, and that General Counsel Michael Frederickson ["Frederickson"] would refer one such counsel to the Respondent,
- Frederickson did, indeed, refer Attorney Thomas Francis ["Francis"],
- Respondent met with Thomas Francis, who said he would study the Petition and related papers this weekend, but he would not commit to taking the case – which he said is "really three in one" – because of the number of hours which would be required,
- Francis estimates an expenditure of at least 200 hours and charges a rate of $225 an hour, or $45,000,
- Respondent suggests that $50,000 would allow for a few more hours and money available for some of the costs,
- Francis also suggested that Respondent ask Frederickson to suggest other counsel, but Frederickson has been at a seminar apparently out-of-town all week, and will not return to the office until Monday, February 10th,
- BBO Assistant Karen O’Toole ["O’Toole"] informed Respondent that Frederickson refers only one counsel at a time, which leaves Respondent without a list of attorneys experienced in BBO cases to contact and learn whether they are, indeed, offering their services pro bono as Weisberg asserted,
- the Answer to the Petition is due February 13th (Respondent will seek an extension).
The second is a fee dispute. In 1999, Respondent had received a bit over $10,000 for consulting services, not for legal representation as Bar Counsel avers, and because Respondent felt badly for the people, she deeply discounted the value of the services she rendered and returned around $3200 to them. When the clients wanted more money refunded, Respondent wrote asking them to identify (1) the tasks she did which they believed she should not have done and (2) the tasks she did not do which they believed she should have done. She also suggested arbitration, which the clients refused. Although the clients answered the Respondent, they not only avoided answering those relevant questions, they filed a complaint with the Bar. Despite having been supplied all the correspondence between the parties, the Bar Counsel’s assertions, which distort the facts to a high level of falsity, make the Petition for Discipline quite frivolous.
The third case began 7 years ago, at the top of 1995. Respondent was found in contempt of a non-existent order. Respondent was attempting to get discovery. She already had proof of fraud on the Commonwealth. In fact, the defendants, Respondent contends, are amongst those committing fraud on the Big Dig project. In 1998, three years after the bogus finding of contempt, when counsel began a sentence with the word "No," Justice Paul McGill, the judge who unlawfully found Johnson in contempt and for some unknown reason would not allow discovery against the wealthy wrongdoers, said, "Lock her up."FN1 One of Respondent’s sons paid the unlawful assessments to get Respondent out of the Framingham jail.
1This is contrary to the Bar Counsel’s assertion that Johnson was incarcerated to force her to pay fines. Johnson was incarcerated for saying “No” to another question Only the ransom for her body was equivalent to the manufactured fines.By the time Johnson was incarcerated, Tyco International had become -- it is believed -- the owner of the company, assumed the liability of the two predecessor corporations, and was encouraging the opposing counsel to indulge in less-than-professional conduct . . . about which Johnson complained to the Bar and about which Johnson wrote appeals. Neither the Bar nor the Appeals Court nor the SJC did anything to stop the ongoing wrongdoing against both Johnson’s clients and Johnson herself. Tyco’s executive officer has, of course, just recently been implicated in criminal wrongdoings.Fast forward to the gubernatorial campaign of 2002. Respondent mentioned the issue of the Big Dig fraud during one of the televised debates. Romney apparently took note, for after being sworn in as Governor, he set up a "committee" to find those who committed the fraud, a subject of interest to the Assistant Inspector-General assigned to the "committee" and with whom the Respondent has begun cooperating. The very documents which Johnson managed to get with a little forethought outside the court and which implicate the defendant from the third case will play a significant role in the investigation of fraud in the Big Dig project.
Clearly, the Petition has been brought in bad faith with malice, with the intention of silencing Respondent and stopping her efforts to abolish judicial and quasijudicial immunity, a subject prominent on Respondent Johnson’s website, www.falseallegations.com.
Therefore the defense against the troika of cases is paramount to the public interest and Respondent is committed to fight the fight in the public arena for the benefit of the interested populace.
Because of her advanced age, excess weight, and considerable cigarette-smoking, and no financial responsibility for anyone anymore, Respondent spent literally all her personal funds on the campaign for Governor, hoping that she could streak down the last lap and call attention to the pressing need for court reform, particularly, but not limited to, the reform of the family-law courts.
For the above reasons, this motion must be allowed in the interest of both fairness to the Respondent and justice to the public.
Barbara C. Johnson
6 Appletree Lane
Andover, MA 01810-4102
978-474-0833CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Barbara C. Johnson, hereby certify that on 6 February 2003, I served a true and accurate copy of the within pleading by first-class mail on Assistant Bar Counsel Susan Strauss Weisberg, Office of Bar Counsel, 75 Federal St., Boston, MA 02110.
___________________________
6 February 2003 Barbara C. Johnson