A public bill of address is theonly way to remove a bad judge.
If you want to see how government really works, Try filing one
Keep these in mind
SJC Rule 3:09 Preamble When the text of the Canons, Sections, or Commentary uses "shall" or "shall not," it is intended to be authoritative. When "should" or "should not" is used (in Commentary) the text is intended as hortatory and as a statement of what is or is not appropriate conduct but not as a binding rule under which a judge may be disciplined. When "may" is used, it denotes permissible discretion or, depending on the context, it refers to action that is not covered by specific proscriptions.
On other words, when a rule uses the word "shall", which is synonomous with the word "must", there is no discretion and action is mandatory
SJC Rule 3:09 Canon 1 A judge shall participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct and shall personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved
SJC Rule 3:09 Canon 2A A judge shall respect and comply with the law* and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
SJC Rule 3:09, Canon 3B(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law* and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.ayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
SJC Rule 3:09 Canon 3B(7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law*. This is pertinent to the excessive delays in hearings and initiation of appeals
SJC Rule 3:09 Canon 3C(2) A judge shall require* court personnel*, including personnel who are directly involved in courtroom proceedings over which the judge presides, to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge.
SJC Rule 3:09 Canon 3C(3) A judge with supervisory authority for the judicial performance of other judges shall take reasonable measures to assure the prompt disposition of matters before them and the proper performance of their other judicial responsibilities. Finally look at her duties and see where she has fallen short
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleI/Chapter211B/Section10
M.G.L. c211B s5The office of the chief justice of a department of the trial court, as provided in section one, shall not be deemed a judicial office as comprehended under the provisions of Article I of Chapter III of Part the Second of the Constitution.
M.G.L. c211B , s6The office of the chief justice for administration and management of the trial court, as provided in section one, shall not be deemed a judicial office as comprehended under the provisions of Article I of Chapter III of Part the Second of the Constitution.
SJC Rule 3:09 Preamble When the text of the Canons, Sections, or Commentary uses "shall" or "shall not," it is intended to be authoritative. When "should" or "should not" is used (in Commentary) the text is intended as hortatory and as a statement of what is or is not appropriate conduct but not as a binding rule under which a judge may be disciplined. When "may" is used, it denotes permissible discretion or, depending on the context, it refers to action that is not covered by specific proscriptions.
On other words, when a rule uses the word "shall", which is synonomous with the word "must", there is no discretion and action is mandatory
SJC Rule 3:09 Canon 1 A judge shall participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct and shall personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved
SJC Rule 3:09 Canon 2A A judge shall respect and comply with the law* and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
SJC Rule 3:09, Canon 3B(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law* and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.ayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
SJC Rule 3:09 Canon 3B(7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law*. This is pertinent to the excessive delays in hearings and initiation of appeals
SJC Rule 3:09 Canon 3C(2) A judge shall require* court personnel*, including personnel who are directly involved in courtroom proceedings over which the judge presides, to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge.
SJC Rule 3:09 Canon 3C(3) A judge with supervisory authority for the judicial performance of other judges shall take reasonable measures to assure the prompt disposition of matters before them and the proper performance of their other judicial responsibilities. Finally look at her duties and see where she has fallen short
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleI/Chapter211B/Section10
M.G.L. c211B s5The office of the chief justice of a department of the trial court, as provided in section one, shall not be deemed a judicial office as comprehended under the provisions of Article I of Chapter III of Part the Second of the Constitution.
M.G.L. c211B , s6The office of the chief justice for administration and management of the trial court, as provided in section one, shall not be deemed a judicial office as comprehended under the provisions of Article I of Chapter III of Part the Second of the Constitution.
Judges, out of self-interest, simply will not will not control judges. We cannot get justice from them in the matter of judicial abuse because they enjoy nearly absolute judicial immunity. Almost every effort to hold them accountable meets with failure. The bar won’t discipline them, the JQC claims they deal only with ethics issues, and the Legislature yawns and looks the other way in all but the most egregious and public abuses. The State Attorney won’t prosecute them because he has to litigate before them and wants to win. The State Attorney controls access to the grand jury, so they will never see evidence of the crimes.
That means the job of bringing justice to them falls upon the stooped shoulders of the People. And because judges have and willingly abuse such awesome power, the People must become adept at guerrilla tactics in order to prevail unscathed.
That means the job of bringing justice to them falls upon the stooped shoulders of the People. And because judges have and willingly abuse such awesome power, the People must become adept at guerrilla tactics in order to prevail unscathed.
The state’s highest court said today that judges cannot be forced to disclose to ethics investigators what they were thinking when they made their rulings, a decision that creates a “judicial deliberative privilege’’ in Massachusetts for the first time.
How to piss off the Judge.
Article 12 part I of the constitution of the state. You have certain inalienable rights provided you:
"Article XII. No subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs, that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his counsel, at his election. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.
The way I read this, you have the same right right as the Senate and can conduct a filibuster in court!!! :-) You will no doubt get a unfavorable result pissing off the judge. My other preferred article is number 11 which I used to quote so often even the other attorney started using it:
Article XI. Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws.
When the Judge wants to throw you out, remind the Judge you have a constituional right to seek justice in the court!! If the Judge refuses you, then the Judge is NOT doing the job, and is violating your rights improperly.
"Article XII. No subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs, that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his counsel, at his election. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.
The way I read this, you have the same right right as the Senate and can conduct a filibuster in court!!! :-) You will no doubt get a unfavorable result pissing off the judge. My other preferred article is number 11 which I used to quote so often even the other attorney started using it:
Article XI. Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws.
When the Judge wants to throw you out, remind the Judge you have a constituional right to seek justice in the court!! If the Judge refuses you, then the Judge is NOT doing the job, and is violating your rights improperly.
If the Judge does not allow you to help
You have an absolute right to have someone help you in court or to help someone else in court in hearing. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has decided this many times in many situations.
The attached page is one I take with me when I go to court to help someone. I show it to the Judge when he/she asks what I think I am doing standing up there beside the defendant. I read it and hand it to the Judge. The Judge has never disagreed with the Supreme Court, especially when he knows I am aware of it. He would look like a total idiot doing so on the record. I have NEVER been told to sit down.
I even won a couple times helping someone. Also lost a few.
If the Judge does not allow you to help, immediately protest it verbally in court. Ask if he is going to contradict the Supreme Court. Get it on the record that is clearly what he is doing! And get him to admit it!! IMO It is definitely appealable after that. You might as well demand a recusal of the Judge while he is clearly violating constitutional rights and showing extreme prejudice and bias.
PRO SE ADVOCATES IN COURT
Non-lawyers can assist or represent litigants in court.
� JOHNSON V. AVERY, 89 S.Ct. 747
Members of group who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law"
� BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN V. VIRGINIA , 377 US 1;
� NAACP V. BUTTON, 371 US 415 (1962);
� SIERRA CLUB V. NORTON, 92 S.Ct. 1561;
� UNITED MINE WORKERS V. GIBBS, 383 US 715;
The power of the states to control the practice of law cannot be exercised so as to abrogate federally protected rights
� NAACP V. BUTTON, 371 US 415 (1962);
� Sperry v. Florida 373 U.S. 379 (1963)
"Reasonable access to the courts is . . . a right [secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States], being guaranteed as against state action by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so far as access by state prisoners to federal courts is concerned, this right was recognized in Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549. . . . The right of access by state prisoners to state courts was recognized in White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 762, n. [1]." Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632, 636 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1961).
Pro Se (Without a Lawyer, representing self) pleadings are to be considered without technicality; pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
� HAINES V. KERNER, 92 S.Ct. 594;
� JENKINS V. MCKEITHEN, 395 US 411, 421 (1969);
� PICKING V. PENNA. RWY. CO. 151 F.2d 240;
� PUCKETT V. COX, 456 F.2d 233.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSISTING MGL 209A ABUSE ORDER DEFENDANTS
Massachusetts Guidelines on Domestic Violence:
2:08 Role of Advocates in Assisting Parties. The court should support the participation of advocates at each stage of the c. 209A process, regardless of whether such persons are volunteers from a local advocacy group, law students, employees of the district attorney or of some other state, community or legal service agency, or friends or family members of either party. Where possible, such support should include providing an area of the courthouse where advocates can operate, allowing sufficient time in the complaint filing process for an advocate to speak to the party, individually or, if there are multiple parties, in a group setting, and to assist the party in filing the complaint, and permitting the advocate to accompany the party, when so requested, to the courtroom. See Guidelines 1:04, 3:09 and 5:02. Advocates should coordinate their efforts with the appropriate staff in each court.
http://www.state.ma.us/courts/formsandguidelines/domestic/dvg2.html#Top
The attached page is one I take with me when I go to court to help someone. I show it to the Judge when he/she asks what I think I am doing standing up there beside the defendant. I read it and hand it to the Judge. The Judge has never disagreed with the Supreme Court, especially when he knows I am aware of it. He would look like a total idiot doing so on the record. I have NEVER been told to sit down.
I even won a couple times helping someone. Also lost a few.
If the Judge does not allow you to help, immediately protest it verbally in court. Ask if he is going to contradict the Supreme Court. Get it on the record that is clearly what he is doing! And get him to admit it!! IMO It is definitely appealable after that. You might as well demand a recusal of the Judge while he is clearly violating constitutional rights and showing extreme prejudice and bias.
PRO SE ADVOCATES IN COURT
Non-lawyers can assist or represent litigants in court.
� JOHNSON V. AVERY, 89 S.Ct. 747
Members of group who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law"
� BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN V. VIRGINIA , 377 US 1;
� NAACP V. BUTTON, 371 US 415 (1962);
� SIERRA CLUB V. NORTON, 92 S.Ct. 1561;
� UNITED MINE WORKERS V. GIBBS, 383 US 715;
The power of the states to control the practice of law cannot be exercised so as to abrogate federally protected rights
� NAACP V. BUTTON, 371 US 415 (1962);
� Sperry v. Florida 373 U.S. 379 (1963)
"Reasonable access to the courts is . . . a right [secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States], being guaranteed as against state action by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so far as access by state prisoners to federal courts is concerned, this right was recognized in Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549. . . . The right of access by state prisoners to state courts was recognized in White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 762, n. [1]." Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632, 636 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1961).
Pro Se (Without a Lawyer, representing self) pleadings are to be considered without technicality; pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
� HAINES V. KERNER, 92 S.Ct. 594;
� JENKINS V. MCKEITHEN, 395 US 411, 421 (1969);
� PICKING V. PENNA. RWY. CO. 151 F.2d 240;
� PUCKETT V. COX, 456 F.2d 233.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSISTING MGL 209A ABUSE ORDER DEFENDANTS
Massachusetts Guidelines on Domestic Violence:
2:08 Role of Advocates in Assisting Parties. The court should support the participation of advocates at each stage of the c. 209A process, regardless of whether such persons are volunteers from a local advocacy group, law students, employees of the district attorney or of some other state, community or legal service agency, or friends or family members of either party. Where possible, such support should include providing an area of the courthouse where advocates can operate, allowing sufficient time in the complaint filing process for an advocate to speak to the party, individually or, if there are multiple parties, in a group setting, and to assist the party in filing the complaint, and permitting the advocate to accompany the party, when so requested, to the courtroom. See Guidelines 1:04, 3:09 and 5:02. Advocates should coordinate their efforts with the appropriate staff in each court.
http://www.state.ma.us/courts/formsandguidelines/domestic/dvg2.html#Top
The Meaning of Immunity
Immunity is a right of the public to have their judges speak and act honestly, no matter how ignominious it might seem to any given observer. Political correctness has no place in court. In a sense, judges are the mommies and daddies of society, and until we flat outlaw all forms of spanking, cursing, malnourshing, neglecting, and abusing of children by parents, we will get similar behavior from judges, as a matter of public right, public policy, and practical operation and practice. Those of us who don’t like this can move to Louisiana or South Africa where judges enjoy less liberal immunity for malicious acts. Everywhere else in the USA judges may publish defamatory remarks in the context of the case, with absolute immunity.
How to Go After a Judge
In any case, some remedies do exist against judicial excess and abuse (we should never think punishment of the judge constitutes redress, for it doesn’t):
1. Seek appellate review – habeas corpus, certioari, prohibition, mandamus.
2. Lodge with a U.S. military or other officer (18 USC 4) a criminal complaint against the judge and all who obstruct prosecution of the judge for the associated crime – consider criminal RICO, or Wire or Mail Fraud (including Honest Services Fraud).
3. Public outcry – inform the news media of the facts and get all friends and family and associates to do the same, demanding an investigation.
4. File an Ethics complaint, if relevant, with the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) or equivalent Judicial Performance Commission (JPC). If you get enough associates to do this about the same behavior by the same judge, the commission will take note. If they don’t act, seek judicial review by the state Supreme Court.
5. File a complaint against the judge with the bar.
6. Dig up the judge’s bond or insurance policy and file a claim against it for damages, sending copies to the news media, House Judiciary Committee, bar, JQC, and Chief Judge
7. File a complaint with the State/Federal House Committee on the Judiciary and demand impeachment.
8. Send a copy of every complaint to the news media, military officer (preferably JAG), JQC, House Judiciary Committee, chief Judge, bar, bar’s insurer, judge’s bonding/insurance company, CFO’s risk management department, your state and US senators and representatives, area lawmakers, and a huge BCC list of attorneys, law makers, the target’s friends and family, mailing list owners, etc. (always show the number of BCC recipients). You could put others on the CC list. That tends to subject them to real spam, but it also encourages them to communicate about the matter with one another.
9. Attack the judge’s credentials – campaign contribution violations, financial entanglements with enterprises that create a conflict of interest, missing loyalty oath, dummied bar exam, law college not accredited, improper or missing loyalty oath (see CUSA Article IV Section 4, 4 USC 101 & 102, 5 USC 3331, state oath laws), improper or missing voter registration and elector’s oath, improper or missing bar oath, improper or missing public officer’s oath of office. Look for forged signatures on the oath document (I saw Jeb Bush’s 1998 oath of office – he signed in the proper place and in the jurat – so he did not lawfully hold his first term of office, and in the second term, his Secretary of State Harris had removed the jurat from the election forms, so he did not lawfully hold office in the second term either).
10. If you dig up irregularities that make the judge an imposter, file a Qui Tam lawsuit, for the judge made fale claims to the CFO for an unwarranted paycheck. State law might give you up to 15% as a reward for recovery of the money.
11. In the event of those irregularities, file a Quo Warranto lawsuit and make the judge prove the irregularities don’t exist. Appeal any ruling in the judge’s favor.
12. Encourage court watchers to attend the judge’s proceedings and file into the cases and with the JQC, news media, bar, and House Judiciary Committee, affidavits of probable cause showing the judge abused the constitutional rights of litigants, witnesses, or observers (crooked judges seem to favor jury tampering).
13. Hire a private investigator to dig into his family, finances, and personal habits – if he’s dirty on the bench, he’s dirty elsewhere, and you can and should expose him, regardless of the problems he suffers as a consequence. Can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Be sure to look into finances very hard. Crooked judges win bets (the kind they didn’t really win) at the poker table, golf links, etc. In California, many judges have recently received mortgage loans which mysteriously got fully paid off a few months later. Journalist Janet Phelan (in hiding in Switzerland) has reported on a number of them in the San Bernardino paper. And let’s not even get into the incredible retirement benefits judges obtain. However, do look for investments into seriously conflicting enterprises that own or benefit from owning jails, prisons, and related properties or industries, or companies selling products manufactured with prison labor. Look hard for evidence of pornography, child abuse, and sexual indiscretions, and get them splattered on page 1 of the newspaper. Take all of the judge’s family and friends to task for their peccadilloes, misdemeanors, crimes, and indiscretions. Expose their wrongs to public scrutiny and let them know the judge stands at the root of their problems. Then they too will hammer the judge into line. Use every possible lawful pressure to convince the judge to behave, then put his figurative head on a figurative pike for other judges to observe and ponder lest they end up in a similar fix. In this very guerrilla war, the wicked shall have no rest.
14. Send the judge notice and demand estoppel letters and assign a value to your work (time, expenses) for administering it. This does tend to perfect evidence of exhausting administrative remedy and building up a obligation to you for your expenditure of time and resources protecting your rights from the judge’s abuse.
15. Hire a ghost writer and PR firm to send out announcements and releases challenging everything about the judge and making him look bad without actually libeling him. Start numerous anonymous blogs to expose the perp. Hire a marketing company to distribute the links via email (lawfully) to everybody possible. Get Web Position Pro (software) and use it to enhance the ranking of your web site/blog in the search engines. Read the stuff at http://thegaryhalbertletter.com and become an expert at direct marketing so that you can make your messages and web pages effective. Example, create your expose’ on paper. On the letter, put a call to action (join the protest group, write to the judge and House judiciary committee and local editors of news media, etc), and a web site to get more info. Stick two shiny new pennies to the top. Boldly headline it with "Shameless bribe to read this letter." Stuff it in an odd-sized colored envelope. Get it hand-addressed in a woman’s lovely handwriting, Drop a dot of perfume on it. Take a pile of them to Tijuana, and mail them to the USA recipient with a huge obviously Mexican lick-and-stick stamp on it. Beyond all doubt, every recipient will tear into the letter and read it. Many will take action if you do the letter properly.
16. Campaign against the judge at the next election, and get all the attorneys you know to do the same.
17. Support the bad judge’s opponent at the next election.
18. Run for office to replace the judge with yourself.
19. Last resort – file a tort lawsuit against the judge and seek remedy that will not interfere with judge’s judicial functions. See Slavin v. Curry, 574 F.2d. 1256 (5th Cir., 1978) – Ask for equitable relief through a declaratory judgment under 42 USC 1983, 1988 that the judge and fellow conspirators violated your constitutional rights. See Jacobson v. Schaefer, 441 F.2d. 768 (7th Cir., 1971). Also, respecting jail for non-jailable offenses, see US Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 Blackmun ruling awarding injunction and attorney fees in Pulliam v. Allen, 80 L. ed. 2d. 565 (1984). Blackmun analyzed the King’s Bench use of the Great Writs (habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus) to control inferior courts. American common law does support collateral relief from judicial abuse, even if you cannot collect a damages award.
20. Ultimate resort – file a tort lawsuit against the government for injuries caused by improper control of its rogue judges. The state has vicarious liability (rejected in the 1980 Owen v City of Independence ruling, but see the Federal Tort Claims Act 1988 amendment in 28 USC 2674) because of the judge’s status as a servant of the state, and therefore of the people from whom all state sovereignty flows. In the alternative, the state has primary liability for wrongful exercise of sovereign powers by its judiciary, of which the judge operates as a component, and which is an element of government, the representative of the state (you might want to block-diagram this). Remember that under 28 USC 2680(a) you might file a claim for failure of the judge to perform some non-discretionary function (see Cromelin v. U.S.). You might see a non-discretionary function as administrative, not judicial. 42 USC 1983 subjects "EVERY PERSON" acting under color of state law to liability for depriving any person in the US of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. Of course this does not abolish common law immunities (meaning judges can rule so as to protect themselves).
21. Whimzy – file a RICO lawsuit against all the bar members of the state, and actually target the 10 or 20 most egregious jurists and attorneys, state and federal, central to the cause of complaint. After all, they ARE racketeers. The Florida Supremes integrated (absorbed) the state bar association into the Supreme Court in 1949. This violated Article II Section 3 of the State Constitution (separation of powers – bar members infest/infect every branch of government, some constitutionally, but most not), and CUSA Article VI clause 3 (guarantee of a republican form of Government). Florida (and I imagine California) operates under a Judicial Oligarchy which prevents the People from knowing all of the relevant common law (by sealing or not publishing salient cases, under the Supremes’ Rules of Judicial Administration rule 2.420, for such spurious and fallacious reasons as "public policy" and "government interest") . This warrants a lawsuit for judicial correction, if not outright violent rebellion against the judiciary’s rulers.
Relying upon the Constitutions
Bottom line, the Constitution must mean what it says. You do have constitutional rights which the state, government, judiciary, and judge MUST respect and protect. In point of fact a real conflict exists
between the Bill of Rights (and State equivalents) and the concept of judicial immunity. Rights advocates simply must use every possible tool to hammer the judiciary into compliance with the Constitution, regardless of the cost. Judges wrote the common law, and it constitutes a conflict of interest for them to use that to establish immunity doctrines that protect them from all damage claims for their violations of rights, procedures, rules, laws, and other guarantees of due process, access to the courts, and timely justice.
Common law immunities have no constitutional foundation. In fact, the Declaration of Independence specifically railed against immunities enjoyed by the King and his agents and military in the Colonies. Circumventing those immunities constituted a major reason for the War of Independence from English Rule.
All men have the right to redress of grievance in the courts, to due process of law, and to constitutional protection of privileges and immunities. And the contravening judicial immunity doctrine is fundamentally and unconstitutionally arbitrary and capricious, in spite of Chief Justice Finesilver’s opinion in Chrietensen v. Ward, BECAUSE the Constitution does not authorize it as a technique for undermining the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. It falls in the same class as whimsical imprisonments for contempt of court without a trial by jury, also unconstitutional. If an act by any person would violate constitutional rights, then the same act by a judge also unconstitutionally violates those rights.
Nothing Constitutional about Immunity
In Mason v. Melendez, 525 F. Supp. 270 at 275 (USDC Wisconsin, 1981), Judge Doyle opined "Immunity from damages, whether absolute or qualified, represents a sharp departure from the principle that persons are responsible for the harm they inflict upon one another, and that the victims may seek compensation from the perpetrators."
Even when some means exists to discipline a rogue judge, that does not provide a real remedy unless some power forces the judge or chain of command to compensate the victims of that rogue behavior, including monetary damages for the infringements of constitutional or common law rights. If the judge does not have to pay, then the State must pay, or justice remains undone, and God will have to exact penalty in the hereafter (or the Mob in this lifetime). Take heed lest God exacts penalty from us for doing NOTHING EFFECTIVE to put the judiciary back in its box.
Good for one, Good for all
The law should make judges, and anyone else, liable for breach of duty causing injury. If the state wants to immunize judges, then it must stand in the judges’ liability shoes, just as any employer must do, in accordance with the doctrine of respondeat superior. This will not make judges liable only for wrong decisions at which they arrive negligently, wantonly, or in conspiracy with the prosecutor, for wrongs that further the conspiracy.
In principle, the law provides a mechanism for the group (nation of states and people) to punish a perp criminally (jail, fine) who hurts someone, and to compensate (monetary damages) a victim directly from the labor of the perp. If for some reason the group has fallen asleep on that obligatory mechanism and allowed some custom (common law) to emasculate it (such as with judicial immunity), then a smaller group (vigilante, mob, rebels) has incumbent responsibility to provide remedy.
This happened by, with, and through the Declaration of Independence, all but two of the signatories of which suffered dire consequences for signing it. It can, and perhaps should, happen through the Mafia, community action groups, lynch mobs today, or violent general rebellion. Jucial independence cannot and should not be bought at the price of tolerating judicial abuse in the name of immunity or amnesty for rogue behavior. Otherwise all judges will become rogues, and, taking their cue, all attorneys will become rogues along with them. Birds of a feather DO, after all, flock together.
Gratifying Our Quest for Balance
In the final analysis, we must seek balance in the judicial integrity equation.
First and foremost we need to know what each judge does. A civilian court watcher group becomes indispensable to this effort. Courtrooms need to provide critique forms to observers, and they should rate the judge, attorney, and bailiff performance. But most credence should go to professional court watcher analyses and reports, and all reports should go into a free, publicly accessible database which people can access at election time.
1. Judges must have immunity from liability for honest mistakes, but EVERY mistake should incur a penalty of enhanced training and "correction," at the judge’s personal expense, so the judge won’t make it again. Every error needs to go on the judge’s public score card.
2. Judges must receive punishment for malicious errors and incompetence (repeating an error, or making a case go to appeal out of malice, fear, sloth, or political expedience), and they must compensate the people they injure from their own pockets, and get thrown off the bench.
3. We must insist upon laws that punish violations of loyalty oaths.
4. All judges must have bonds in the amount of $1,000,000 minimum, and they must pay the bonding fee out of their salaries, not out of public money.
5. A special grand jury (SGJ) drawn from the pool of jurors with bachelor degrees and no bar membership should receive all complaints against judges for malicious abuse or rights violations, and rule as to the guilt or innocence of the judge. They should approve or deny damage awards from the judge’s bond/insurance policy, and have the power to order a non-reviewable revocation of the bond or elevation of the bonding fee. No government attorney would have the right to attend or advise in this process, but the SGJ could hire consulting attorneys, ex-attorneys, law professors, judges, ex-judges, and other experts for help sorting through issues.
6. We need to undo hundreds of years of "this is how we’ve done it for centuries" tradition by eliminating the bulk of common law through codifying it in statute. This of course will eliminate the vast majority of judicial rulings as precedents. The legislature would review all panel court rulings, and add it to the list of rulings in support of the meaning of the statutory law, or enact an amendment or replacement to the respective law and cite the ruling (if any) that led to it. The law could require the legislature not to get more than a year behind on any case. At first this would create a huge expense. But in time it would settle down so some minimum. All statutory law and supporting case law would go in a nationwide government-operated free, on-line database that would also include the statutory and common law of England that provides the basis for American law. This would break the monopoly on law databases maintained by the ALI, Westlaw, and Lexus Nexis and reduce the legal services monopoly enjoyed by lawyers. It would finally make the law easily knowable by the people. And it would break the hegemony enjoyed by the judiciary over Americans. Judges should not have the power to make law at their whim.
7. We must replace all "public policy" and "government interests" with statutory law. They amount to nothing more than whim, CYA, and political expediency. They have no rightful place in jurisprudence.
If You Decide to Fight…
You ought not to make the decision to fight a judge lightly. Like fighting the IRS, it can consume your resources, your family, your friends, in irrecoverable years of your life. You must adequately prepare for the battle, and prepare to dig in for the long haul. And you ought to remember that judges, wielding the awesome, puissant force of government, can hurt you badly and end your fortune, liberty, and life if they choose to.
1. Make yourself anonymous, like Guy Fawkes – adopt false identities, pseudonyms, hidden accounts.
2. Make yourself judgment proof – set up trusts, LLCs, offshore enterprises, and put your assets into the them, or into the names of remote family children or others trustworthy and hard to get to.
3. Amass a fortune and hide it from tax collectors and other government agents – you will need money to fight. Do not use safety deposit boxes or bank accounts in your name. Consider putting money into precious gemstones, or in numismatic coins or stamps that hold appeal to international collectors. A single old quarter could have a value fo $25,000.
4. Develop a network of like-minded friends, and help them when you can by supporting them in their efforts to obtain justice. Consider finding supporters at http://meetup.com, people interested in Tea Party efforts. Also, look in the legal community, for many attorneys know first hand the evils of judges and highly placed bar members. They might have problems of their own with judges and they might feel willing to contribute time or money to your cause.
5. Form a courtwatcher group in your community and enlist interested citizens (you will find them among victims of judicial abuse), and train them to observe proceedings, note the abusive and illegal behaviors of bailiffs, attorneys, and judges, and write and file affidavits of probable cause against the purps. Focus on those bad judges you want to target.
6. Look for angel investors willing to back you in your cause. Many Americans of means hate seeing judges become abusive and high-handed.
7. Cultivate friendships with people in the news media, and amass a collection of reporters, columnists, journalists, and bloggers willing to spread what news you give them. Write informative research-opinion pieces (like this one) that can give prospective supporters perspective on the issues.
8. Create your own news media – develop a mailing list of people interested in government and law, and write an occasional article for them or toss them tidbits of inside scoop or news. Encourage them to sign up new subscribers. Post your newletter content to your own or an anonymous blog from time to time. And send links for your blog to search engines.
9. Write a book or two, or periodic pamphlets that enlighten without condemning, and get them published.
10. Join or start a speaker’s bureau and make yourself known by attending and speaking at public events.
11. Hire a PR agent for yourself to make you know to a wide circle of influential people – go where people of means and respect congregate, and make yourself known to them.
12. Meet and get to know your state and federal legislators and your local city/county council/commissioners. Help those whose positions you find amenable to your philosophy, and toss some money and time at them to help with their campaigns. A hundred dollars now and then can buy some needed support. Consider holding a fundraiser dinner for a candidate now and then.
13. Look around for judges you like and express good things about them publicly. Then when you start your attack on the bad judge, you will seem (and be) "fair and balanced."
14. Scour the law library for case law that supports your position, and continually write into your supporting brief the salient law and reasoning that can help you win in litigation, a news article, or a public debate.
15. Eliminate irascibility, arrogance, and quirkiness from your behavior, and if possible your personality, and groom yourself impeccably before going out in public. If you want broad support, you must look and act like you deserve it.
16. Consider running for public office to enhance your public image and do a good job for the community.
17. Master your use of time – use it wisely, for you have much to accomplish.
Few people have the resources to do all of the above, except as a profession, but you must prepare if you hope to win.
Summary – Judges Will Not Control Judges
Until our world and its people become much more spiritually oriented, self-interest (money, job, fame, ego) will always provide the highest motivation for the decisions judges make. Next to that comes family well-being. Then comes the legal profession (cronyism). Then government obligation. Then
maybe, finally, the litigant’s rights. If we expect something better than that in the next 500 years, we expect way too much.
Judges, out of self-interest, simply will not will not control judges. We cannot get justice from them in the matter of judicial abuse because they enjoy nearly absolute judicial immunity. Almost every effort to hold them accountable meets with failure. The bar won’t discipline them, the JQC claims they deal only with ethics issues, and the Legislature yawns and looks the other way in all but the most egregious and public abuses. The State Attorney won’t prosecute them because he has to litigate before them and wants to win. The State Attorney controls access to the grand jury, so they will never see evidene of the crimes.
That means the job of bringing justice to them falls upon the stooped shoulders of the People. And because judges have and willingly abuse such awesome power, the People must become adept at guerilla tactics in order to prevail unscathed.
Axiom: the FOX shall not guard the HENHOUSE.
We chickens ignore or violate that axiom at our peril.
Subscribe to Lawmen Newsletter FREE
Many thanks to Bob Hurt
Judges want to hide behind their rope
Nearly 60 percent of Massachusetts trial judges said they have been targeted by verbal or written threats during their careers, the Lowell Sun reports, citing a report by the Massachusetts Judges Conference.
The Conference is lobbying the Legislature to make assault and battery against judges and court personnel a felony. As the Sun reports, it is now a misdemeanor.
Read more at The Lowell Sun
Read more: Boston Business Journal: Contempt for court
Search how many times your favorite judge has been appealed
http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/search_judge.php
http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/search_judge.php
Domestic Violence Defense Lawyer Launches Website to Help Those Falsely Accused
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 26, 2010 – The Law Offices of Michael S. Discioarro, LLC, a New York City Law Firm that specializes in defending those accused of domestic violence launched a new website today with the help of Headly International. “I believe this site will be of great assistance to those falsely accused of domestic violence.” It has really become an epidemic in this country.” Mr. Discioarro said. Some reports have stated that there are four million false domestic violence cases filed every year in America’s courts.
The reasons that people file these false claims range from custody fights, to revenge for being dumped. Once a person is accused of domestic violence he can be removed from his home, stripped of his parental rights and even face serious jail time. This issue is politically not popular because politicians tend to take the accusers word every time. Prosecutors are reluctant to prosecute those who make false domestic violence charges for fear as being accused of blaming a victim.” It is really sad what is going on in the courts. Families are being ripped apart because of these false charges.” Mr. Discioarro said.
In New York City a false domestic violence accusation will result in an order or protection being issued against the accused and the accused cannot return to his own home. This is a serious issue for people who have nowhere else to stay. The new website can be viewed at http://www.nycdomesticviolencelawyer.com and Mr. Discioarro can be reached at 917-519-8417.
May 26, 2010 – The Law Offices of Michael S. Discioarro, LLC, a New York City Law Firm that specializes in defending those accused of domestic violence launched a new website today with the help of Headly International. “I believe this site will be of great assistance to those falsely accused of domestic violence.” It has really become an epidemic in this country.” Mr. Discioarro said. Some reports have stated that there are four million false domestic violence cases filed every year in America’s courts.
The reasons that people file these false claims range from custody fights, to revenge for being dumped. Once a person is accused of domestic violence he can be removed from his home, stripped of his parental rights and even face serious jail time. This issue is politically not popular because politicians tend to take the accusers word every time. Prosecutors are reluctant to prosecute those who make false domestic violence charges for fear as being accused of blaming a victim.” It is really sad what is going on in the courts. Families are being ripped apart because of these false charges.” Mr. Discioarro said.
In New York City a false domestic violence accusation will result in an order or protection being issued against the accused and the accused cannot return to his own home. This is a serious issue for people who have nowhere else to stay. The new website can be viewed at http://www.nycdomesticviolencelawyer.com and Mr. Discioarro can be reached at 917-519-8417.
Senator Baddour, Apologies for the tardiness here.
An e-mail from one of the gentlemen who was part of the 11Feb10 meeting with Senator Baddour.
Senator, we appreciate your meeting with us, as well as how candid we believe you were. We also appreciate that we did get a concrete commitment from you to introduce a bill this session which would address false allegations made when filing for a restraining order under MGL 209a.
The italicized language after Chapter 209A : Section 1A. complaint form; perjury; penalties; remedies is the exact language we would have you introduce this session. Is there, in your opinion, a better way to introduce the language (e.g. as an attachment or rider to another bill) that would be (in terms of the likelihood of it making it to the floor for a full vote) better than introducing it as a standalone bill (as I propose below) to amend the existing 209a (by inserting the new subsection 1A)? If so, what is it, and why?
Rather than amend several different subsections of MGL c209A, I decided to simply insert a new subsection (i.e. 1A).
I borrowed what made sense from the related WV law, and from MGL c268.
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=HB3065%20SUB.htm&yr=2008&sesstype=RS&i=3065
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-268-toc.htm
You'll note that I included minimum sentencing and got the maximums from MGL c268 s1.
Chapter 209A : Section 1A. complaint form; perjury; penalties; remedies
In accordance with the disclaimer in the footer of the affidavit page that is part of the filing of a complaint for Abuse Prevention under this chapter, which reads "I declare under penalty of perjury that all statements of fact made above, and in any additional pages attached, are true.", anyone who is found by the Court to have knowingly filed said Complaint for Abuse Prevention with it containing any false allegations whatsoever shall be guilty of perjury as defined in sections 1 and 1A of MGL c268, and shall be punished by a fine of neither less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in jail for neither less than two months nor more than two and one half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment in jail.
Additionally, the Court may impose monetary sanctions upon the perjurer not to exceed all costs incurred by the party accused as a direct result of defending against the false allegation(s), and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in recovering the sanctions against the person making the false allegation(s). The remedy provided by this subsection is in addition to any other remedy provided by law.
The same punishment as has been heretofore defined in this subsection shall also be applied to anyone found by the Court to have engaged in any, some, most, or all of the activities proscribed in sections 2, 3, and 4 of MGL c268.
Further remedy in the form of the allocation of additional parenting time with the child(ren) to make up for any parenting time the falsely accused parent has lost as a result of the aforementioned proscribed activity shall be ordered by the Court, which shall also take into consideration the allocation of additional parenting time in order to rehabilitate any adverse effect upon the relationship between the child(ren) and the falsely accused parent that arose because of the false allegation(s) of the other parent.
"SECTION 2. Chapter 209A of the General Laws is hereby amended by adding the following section:-
"Section 10. Whoever, under the pains and penalties of perjury, intentionally provides evidence or a statement, or intentionally causes evidence or a statement to be provided, for the issuance, continuation or modification of a protective order under this chapter, knowing that such evidence or statement is false, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2½ years, or by both such fine and imprisonment
"Section 10. Whoever, under the pains and penalties of perjury, intentionally provides evidence or a statement, or intentionally causes evidence or a statement to be provided, for the issuance, continuation or modification of a protective order under this chapter, knowing that such evidence or statement is false, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2½ years, or by both such fine and imprisonment
Domestic relations - Abuse prevention order - Due process Published: May 17, 2010
Where a defendant moved to vacate an abuse prevention order issued against him pursuant to G.L.c. 209A, the motion should have been allowed on due process grounds.
"Here, though [defendant Michael C.] Vlasak was served with the ex parte order, it provided no actual date of any subsequent hearing for extension. General Laws c. 209A, §4, as appearing in St. 1990, c. 403, §4, governing temporary abuse prevention orders, provides only that a hearing shall be held ‘no later than ten court business days after such orders are entered.' Thus, without knowledge of the particular date on which a hearing would be held, Vlasak was denied the ‘fundamental requisite of due process,' namely ‘an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.' ... We therefore vacate the abuse prevention order issued April 23, 2009
Gonzalez v. Vlasak (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-513-10) (3 pages) (Appeals Court - Unpublished) (No. 09-P-2121) (May 7, 2010).
Detailed Information Court Appeals Court - Unpublished Case # 81-513-10
Reading about Judge Manzi I discovered the book that she censored by
Kevin Thompson. His effort outshines any that I might attempt,
although there was much less at stake with my ordeal. It's
well-written, gets right to the point, and I think it deserves more
exposure. I regret not having discovered it sooner.
http://corruptcourts.us/Expos-Corr-MA-Court-Sys.pdf
I encourage folks to check out the free textbooks at Flat World. 'Law
and Economics' is an interest of mine and is a recurring theme on this
list, I've noticed.
Introduction to Economic Analysis by R. Preston McAfee and Tracy R. Lewis
http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/printed-book/1630
http://www.thompson4justice.com/MOTION_FOR_CLARIFICATION2.doc
6. On March 22, 2006, the Mother's motions were heard before Judge
Manzi who issued orders that impound content from the Father's book
until the year 2021 and permanently restrain the Father from
disseminating his book.
Kevin Thompson. His effort outshines any that I might attempt,
although there was much less at stake with my ordeal. It's
well-written, gets right to the point, and I think it deserves more
exposure. I regret not having discovered it sooner.
http://corruptcourts.us/Expos-Corr-MA-Court-Sys.pdf
I encourage folks to check out the free textbooks at Flat World. 'Law
and Economics' is an interest of mine and is a recurring theme on this
list, I've noticed.
Introduction to Economic Analysis by R. Preston McAfee and Tracy R. Lewis
http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/printed-book/1630
http://www.thompson4justice.com/MOTION_FOR_CLARIFICATION2.doc
6. On March 22, 2006, the Mother's motions were heard before Judge
Manzi who issued orders that impound content from the Father's book
until the year 2021 and permanently restrain the Father from
disseminating his book.
The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them
Letter's I have sent out.
Dear Chief Justice Carey;
Many fathers, including myself, are subjected to "Permission to file rules in the Massachusetts Family and Probate Court." This policy is a clear violation of ones due process rights and it should stop. This policy often delays justice to families, usually fathers who are fighting for their right to see their children, As I have. The time clock on children's lives does not stop and this delay tactic by the court feeds into parental alienation as well as ones right for speedy justice. Please order your justices to not violate due process rights and stop the process of first requiring permission to file, when a party needs to or wants to file a motion. It is a tactic of the court that directly violates a persons legal rights, and I have been subject to that since 1993, and the order has not been vacated. Does a temporary order in the family probate court have a exparation date? I am sending a copy of this letter to my State Rep and State Senator to inform them that this is one of the problems within the Family and Probate Court that needs to be addresses and stopped.
Thank you.
Hector Montalvo
Dear Mr. Montalvo, I am responding to your recent e-mail to Chief Justice Carey. If a judge enters an order requiring you to seek permission by motion or otherwise before you can file any further pleadings, then your remedy, if any, is to appeal the order to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. This office does not overrule or intervene in cases pending in the various Divisions of the Probate and Family Court Department. We do not have the authority to do this. At this time, I suggest that you consult with an attorney. If you have any questions, please feel free to communicate with me further.
Thank you.
John Cross, Pro Se Coordinator
Dear Senator Steven A Baddour
Dear Representative Linda Dean Campbell
I hope you are enjoying your summer. Thank you for your work on behalf of the
Commonwealth.
On September 17, the House Judiciary will be holding hearings on Shared
Parenting bills. I am writing you to alert you to these hearing and to ask that
you put in a good word of support for Equal Shared Parenting for fit parents.
It is time to level the playing field, and insure that equal rights also occur
in the raising of ones children post separation and divorce.
Thank you for your help in this matter. Please let me know if you can be
supportive and put in a good word to members of the Judiciary committee.
Sincerely
Hector Montalvo
Child Support Enforcement Marily Rae Smith,
I have been trying to unlock the big secret, the elephant in the closet here in Massachusetts.
That is to find out how many fathers, how many men, have been thrown in jail for civil contempt for being to broke to pay child support, to broke to pay attorney’s fees, special master fees, GAL fees and other fees. I have sent public requests to the head of the Probate Court, to the Commissioner of Prisons, by the way who told me to ask the different county jails.
Every day fathers, men are being thrown out of their jobs and their families for just being a dead broke dad. In this economy, this practice should stop and must stop. Debtors prisons were eliminated years ago.
Your Department is the keeper of the records, your office should be required to provide such information, and if your Department do not have it, You should be required to start compiling it or be able to back into the information so your Department can provide it.
Thank you for helping to provide for this information.
Hector Montalvo
Secretary of State William F. Galvin
Public Records Request Appeal
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108-1517
Re. Public Records Request Appeal;
Dear Secretary Galvin;
I have been trying to unlock the big secret, the elephant in the closet here in
Massachusetts.
That is to find out how many fathers, how many men, have been thrown in jail for
civil contempt for being to broke to pay child support, to broke to pay
attorney's fees, special master fees, GAL fees and other fees. I have sent
public requests to the head of the Probate Court, to the DOR and to the
Commissioner of Prisons, by the way who told me to ask the different county
jails.
Enclosed please find my request of the Middlesex Sheriff's Office, in which the
Commissioner of jails stated should have such records.
I ask that the Middlesex sheriff's office be required to provide such
information, and that if they do not have it, they should be required to start
compiling it or be able to back into the information so they must provide it.
Every day fathers, men are being thrown out of their jobs and their families for
just being a dead broke dad. In this economy, this practice should stop and
must stop. Debtors prisons were eliminated years ago. They should be for dead
broke dads.
Thank you for helping to provide for this information.
Sincerely yours,
Hector Montalvo
Dear State Rep Linda Dean Campbell,
Dear State Senator Steven A Baddour
Debtors prisons were eliminated years ago. However, if you are a divorce father
who is struggling financially, you would not know that debtors prison has been
eliminated. For now their is something called civil contempt and imputed
income. So what does this mean. This means that if you lose your job and can no
longer pay, often Judges in Massachusetts input income for what they think you
should be making even if you are not making it. Therefore if you are not making
what the Judge thinks you should be making, despite a loss of income or a drop
of income. If you are no longer able to financially meet the obligations of
your child support, the Judges do put you in jails.
Now Massachusetts Probate Court, the Department of Revenue and the Prison system
does not keep track of how many fathers are thrown in jail for inability to pay
ones child support. Fathers have tried to glean this information of how many
dads lives are ruined by being thrown into jails and away from their kids.
Fathers have sent out Massachusetts Record Request to all the aforementioned
agencies for this information, only to be told it is not kept.
During these tough economic times, at a minimum, I hereby request that your
office work to suspend all civil contempt suspensions for fathers inability to
pay child support. Fathers should not be forced to lose what ever jobs they do
have and should not be thrown into jails where they certainly can't help to
raise their children. Second, please request that the aforementioned agencies
start to keep records of how many fathers are being thrown in jail for civil
contempt for inability to pay child support, special masters, GAL's, lawyers and
other para professionals.
Please help to stop this practice and do it for the children of the
Commonwealth.
Thank You
Hector Montalvo
Dear Governor,
I write today to alert you to a serious problem in our society and to request your assistance for myself and for others who are similarly situated. As you are aware from your numerous town hall meetings across the Commonwealth, father's are being treated unfairly in our judicial system, particularly in the Probate and Family Courts with regards to child support and child custody.
There needs to be a committee appointed to investigate the concerns that you heard many times from the various reaches of the Commonwealth in these matters. I would request that you consider for the appointment to the committee individuals who would have a greater likelihood of impartiality than lawyers and judges that have participated and contributed to the present problem
I have been victimized by and suffered from this discrimination. My attempts to resolve reasonably my issues with DOR since 1998 has been to no avail. DOR insists on operating with arrogance, insensitivity and impunity
I have sought assistance from Congresswoman Niki Tsonga and Representative Linda Campbell but DOR has refused to respond to their requests for information. I have requested DOR to cease the frivolous actions for alleged arrears that are unproven because the proceedings are exhausting my time in energy in court, which is more troubling and harmful in the present economy.
DOR has complicated my matter by sending my support payments to another state, without any due process to me or even providing me with an order from that state.
I am threatened with incarceration constantly while DOR violates the laws of the Commonwealth and the U.S. with impunity because judges allows it to act as it does. This must come to an end.
In the past i have been more than willing and forthright to express my gratitude and appreciation of you in your performance as Governor of the Commonwealth.
Now i ask that you don't let me down and please use the powers that I gave you when I voted for you to send a clear message to DOR that this abuse will stop and stop immediately.
I am relying on you as one of the officials that i elecetd to take action to cease my abuse at the hands of bureaucratic thugs.
In parting, I wish you the best in your recovery and look forward to hearing from you soon.
Thank You
Hector Montalvo
Dear Chief Justice Carey;
Many fathers, including myself, are subjected to "Permission to file rules in the Massachusetts Family and Probate Court." This policy is a clear violation of ones due process rights and it should stop. This policy often delays justice to families, usually fathers who are fighting for their right to see their children, As I have. The time clock on children's lives does not stop and this delay tactic by the court feeds into parental alienation as well as ones right for speedy justice. Please order your justices to not violate due process rights and stop the process of first requiring permission to file, when a party needs to or wants to file a motion. It is a tactic of the court that directly violates a persons legal rights, and I have been subject to that since 1993, and the order has not been vacated. Does a temporary order in the family probate court have a exparation date? I am sending a copy of this letter to my State Rep and State Senator to inform them that this is one of the problems within the Family and Probate Court that needs to be addresses and stopped.
Thank you.
Hector Montalvo
Dear Mr. Montalvo, I am responding to your recent e-mail to Chief Justice Carey. If a judge enters an order requiring you to seek permission by motion or otherwise before you can file any further pleadings, then your remedy, if any, is to appeal the order to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. This office does not overrule or intervene in cases pending in the various Divisions of the Probate and Family Court Department. We do not have the authority to do this. At this time, I suggest that you consult with an attorney. If you have any questions, please feel free to communicate with me further.
Thank you.
John Cross, Pro Se Coordinator
Dear Senator Steven A Baddour
Dear Representative Linda Dean Campbell
I hope you are enjoying your summer. Thank you for your work on behalf of the
Commonwealth.
On September 17, the House Judiciary will be holding hearings on Shared
Parenting bills. I am writing you to alert you to these hearing and to ask that
you put in a good word of support for Equal Shared Parenting for fit parents.
It is time to level the playing field, and insure that equal rights also occur
in the raising of ones children post separation and divorce.
Thank you for your help in this matter. Please let me know if you can be
supportive and put in a good word to members of the Judiciary committee.
Sincerely
Hector Montalvo
Child Support Enforcement Marily Rae Smith,
I have been trying to unlock the big secret, the elephant in the closet here in Massachusetts.
That is to find out how many fathers, how many men, have been thrown in jail for civil contempt for being to broke to pay child support, to broke to pay attorney’s fees, special master fees, GAL fees and other fees. I have sent public requests to the head of the Probate Court, to the Commissioner of Prisons, by the way who told me to ask the different county jails.
Every day fathers, men are being thrown out of their jobs and their families for just being a dead broke dad. In this economy, this practice should stop and must stop. Debtors prisons were eliminated years ago.
Your Department is the keeper of the records, your office should be required to provide such information, and if your Department do not have it, You should be required to start compiling it or be able to back into the information so your Department can provide it.
Thank you for helping to provide for this information.
Hector Montalvo
Secretary of State William F. Galvin
Public Records Request Appeal
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108-1517
Re. Public Records Request Appeal;
Dear Secretary Galvin;
I have been trying to unlock the big secret, the elephant in the closet here in
Massachusetts.
That is to find out how many fathers, how many men, have been thrown in jail for
civil contempt for being to broke to pay child support, to broke to pay
attorney's fees, special master fees, GAL fees and other fees. I have sent
public requests to the head of the Probate Court, to the DOR and to the
Commissioner of Prisons, by the way who told me to ask the different county
jails.
Enclosed please find my request of the Middlesex Sheriff's Office, in which the
Commissioner of jails stated should have such records.
I ask that the Middlesex sheriff's office be required to provide such
information, and that if they do not have it, they should be required to start
compiling it or be able to back into the information so they must provide it.
Every day fathers, men are being thrown out of their jobs and their families for
just being a dead broke dad. In this economy, this practice should stop and
must stop. Debtors prisons were eliminated years ago. They should be for dead
broke dads.
Thank you for helping to provide for this information.
Sincerely yours,
Hector Montalvo
Dear State Rep Linda Dean Campbell,
Dear State Senator Steven A Baddour
Debtors prisons were eliminated years ago. However, if you are a divorce father
who is struggling financially, you would not know that debtors prison has been
eliminated. For now their is something called civil contempt and imputed
income. So what does this mean. This means that if you lose your job and can no
longer pay, often Judges in Massachusetts input income for what they think you
should be making even if you are not making it. Therefore if you are not making
what the Judge thinks you should be making, despite a loss of income or a drop
of income. If you are no longer able to financially meet the obligations of
your child support, the Judges do put you in jails.
Now Massachusetts Probate Court, the Department of Revenue and the Prison system
does not keep track of how many fathers are thrown in jail for inability to pay
ones child support. Fathers have tried to glean this information of how many
dads lives are ruined by being thrown into jails and away from their kids.
Fathers have sent out Massachusetts Record Request to all the aforementioned
agencies for this information, only to be told it is not kept.
During these tough economic times, at a minimum, I hereby request that your
office work to suspend all civil contempt suspensions for fathers inability to
pay child support. Fathers should not be forced to lose what ever jobs they do
have and should not be thrown into jails where they certainly can't help to
raise their children. Second, please request that the aforementioned agencies
start to keep records of how many fathers are being thrown in jail for civil
contempt for inability to pay child support, special masters, GAL's, lawyers and
other para professionals.
Please help to stop this practice and do it for the children of the
Commonwealth.
Thank You
Hector Montalvo
Dear Governor,
I write today to alert you to a serious problem in our society and to request your assistance for myself and for others who are similarly situated. As you are aware from your numerous town hall meetings across the Commonwealth, father's are being treated unfairly in our judicial system, particularly in the Probate and Family Courts with regards to child support and child custody.
There needs to be a committee appointed to investigate the concerns that you heard many times from the various reaches of the Commonwealth in these matters. I would request that you consider for the appointment to the committee individuals who would have a greater likelihood of impartiality than lawyers and judges that have participated and contributed to the present problem
I have been victimized by and suffered from this discrimination. My attempts to resolve reasonably my issues with DOR since 1998 has been to no avail. DOR insists on operating with arrogance, insensitivity and impunity
I have sought assistance from Congresswoman Niki Tsonga and Representative Linda Campbell but DOR has refused to respond to their requests for information. I have requested DOR to cease the frivolous actions for alleged arrears that are unproven because the proceedings are exhausting my time in energy in court, which is more troubling and harmful in the present economy.
DOR has complicated my matter by sending my support payments to another state, without any due process to me or even providing me with an order from that state.
I am threatened with incarceration constantly while DOR violates the laws of the Commonwealth and the U.S. with impunity because judges allows it to act as it does. This must come to an end.
In the past i have been more than willing and forthright to express my gratitude and appreciation of you in your performance as Governor of the Commonwealth.
Now i ask that you don't let me down and please use the powers that I gave you when I voted for you to send a clear message to DOR that this abuse will stop and stop immediately.
I am relying on you as one of the officials that i elecetd to take action to cease my abuse at the hands of bureaucratic thugs.
In parting, I wish you the best in your recovery and look forward to hearing from you soon.
Thank You
Hector Montalvo
Help remove Manzi from the bench
Chief Justice Robert Mulligan
Administrative Office Of the Trial Court
Two Center Plaza Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02108 April 2, 2010
Honorable Chief Justice Mulligan,
I want to thank you again for being open and transparent in handling my requests. I come to you one last time before I take my issue to the Federal court in regards to Hon. Mary Manzi.
I appeal to your office, as I have found Hon. Chief Justice Paula Carey unwilling to address this issue. Hon. Manzi "does it again"
she inexplicably disallowed a hearing on my request, even though, pursuant to request by Hon. Paula Carey, both parties agreed to the recording, prior to the hearing. Hon. Manzi refused to hear the parties in the case on the issue of recording. Judge Manzi has cited no laws or written rules that requires me to hand deliver my request to the court.
I faxed a copy of the request to Judge Manzi's clerk, as I can find no law or rule to the contrary, her denial is without merit and flies in the face of SJC Rule 1:19. Can you provide what section of the law, if any, where request sent via email or fax are considered an invalid form of notice?
This is blatant stonewalling on Hon. Manzi's part. I have complied with every request, jumped through every hoop placed in front of me and I am continually denied my First Amendment constitutional rights, and the rights under SJC RULE 1:19 to record Hon. Manzi in action.
If I were to hold the Hon. Manzi to level of scrutiny that she has held me to in this simple matter, I can guarantee you that I would expose more than her unwillingness to comply with SJC RULE 1:19 I call on you today to do the right thing, the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as SJC RULE 1:19 and address this issue with Judge Manzi directly.
She stated I was told on the record in January that I couldn't fax in my request, she then proceeded to verbally order that her dockets be given to me three weeks ahead of any hearing I wish to record.
To this date, the order was never issued in writing, and now claims that she never ordered any such thing. Something is clearly not right with Judge Manzi.
The Essex County P+F lists their fax numbers for the general clerk's office on their web page to the public. All the letterheads of the correspondence the court has sent me had fax numbers listed on them. If the court doesn't wish to use the fax, then why publish the numbers to the public?
Chief Justice Mulligan could you please put in place a policy for all the divisions of the Trial Court of the Commonwealth to follow.
With technological advances in electronic communications and information technology, I would think that electronic filing, including facsimile, would be the preferred method over snail-mail or courier, especially if you are only given a 24 to 48 hours window of notice to file your media requests to record a hearing.
Behind the Scene thanks you again for being open and transparent, and for the willingness to resolve this issue.
Tell Senators to Stop the Civil Rights Travesty
Even though the Fourth Amendment requires "probable cause" before an arrest can be made, the domestic violence industry delights in putting more and more people behind bars, no matter what the Constitution says!
It's time to speak up for our rights and our civil liberties!
Even though the Fourth Amendment requires "probable cause" before an arrest can be made, the domestic violence industry delights in putting more and more people behind bars, no matter what the Constitution says!
It's time to speak up for our rights and our civil liberties!
preponderance of the evidence n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.
A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action.
In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim. When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. A third standard, proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and very few civil cases.
The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.
The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence.
Under some circumstances use of the low preponderance of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights. For example, if a state seeks to deprive natural parents of custody of their children, requiring only proof by a preponderance of evidence is a violation of the parents' due process rights (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 [1982]). Freedom in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest, and the government cannot take it away with only a modest evidentiary standard. However, a court may use a preponderance of evidence standard when a mother seeks to establish that a certain man is the father of her child (Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 107 S. Ct. 3001, 97 L. Ed. 2d 473 [1987]). Most states use the preponderance of evidence standard in these cases because they have an interest in ensuring that fathers support their children.
Further readings Orloff, Neil, and Jery Stedinger. 1983. "A Framework for Evaluating the Preponderance-of-the-Evidence Standard." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 131 (April).
Slatkin, Stephanie. 1997. "The Standard of Proof at Sentencing Hearings Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Why the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard is Constitutionally Inadequate."
Cross-references Clear and Convincing Proof.
In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim. When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. A third standard, proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and very few civil cases.
The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.
The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence.
Under some circumstances use of the low preponderance of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights. For example, if a state seeks to deprive natural parents of custody of their children, requiring only proof by a preponderance of evidence is a violation of the parents' due process rights (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 [1982]). Freedom in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest, and the government cannot take it away with only a modest evidentiary standard. However, a court may use a preponderance of evidence standard when a mother seeks to establish that a certain man is the father of her child (Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 107 S. Ct. 3001, 97 L. Ed. 2d 473 [1987]). Most states use the preponderance of evidence standard in these cases because they have an interest in ensuring that fathers support their children.
Further readings Orloff, Neil, and Jery Stedinger. 1983. "A Framework for Evaluating the Preponderance-of-the-Evidence Standard." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 131 (April).
Slatkin, Stephanie. 1997. "The Standard of Proof at Sentencing Hearings Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Why the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard is Constitutionally Inadequate."
Cross-references Clear and Convincing Proof.
FYI Here is the state response as to who has access to DV registry
Dear Mr. Watson,
Thank you for the clarification. The only entities to which the Criminal History Systems Board provides access to the Commonwealth’s statewide domestic violence record keeping system are criminal justice agencies, defined in G.L. c. 6, s. 167, as "those agencies at all levels of government which perform as their principal function, activities relating to (a) crime prevention, including research or the sponsorship of research; (b) the apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, incarceration, or rehabilitation of criminal offenders; or (c) the collection, storage, dissemination or usage of criminal offender record information." Other agencies,which may obtain CORI certification under G.L. c. 6, s. 172, do not get access to the DV registry
Dear Mr. Watson,
Thank you for the clarification. The only entities to which the Criminal History Systems Board provides access to the Commonwealth’s statewide domestic violence record keeping system are criminal justice agencies, defined in G.L. c. 6, s. 167, as "those agencies at all levels of government which perform as their principal function, activities relating to (a) crime prevention, including research or the sponsorship of research; (b) the apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, incarceration, or rehabilitation of criminal offenders; or (c) the collection, storage, dissemination or usage of criminal offender record information." Other agencies,which may obtain CORI certification under G.L. c. 6, s. 172, do not get access to the DV registry
Is there anything else to say....
Children who loose regular contact with their father are;
- 63% of youth suicides
- 70% of juveniles in State Institutions
- 71% of High School dropouts
- 75% of children in drug abuse centres
- 85% of children with behavioural problems
- 87% of juvenile offenders.
- 90% of homeless and runaway children
Quote #1 Custody laws should make it clearer that separated fathers are not
entitled to a 50-50 time split with their children, after the sweeping
reforms of 2006 led parents to focus more on their rights instead of their
children's needs.
"Family violence" is (and will be) the trojan horse being used by feminists
to undermine equal shared parenting.
Quote #2: Three major reviews of shared parenting laws have urged dramatic
changes to the family law system, including a major expansion of the
definition of family violence to include economic and emotional abuse, and
automatic violence risk assessments in all parenting court cases.
Children who loose regular contact with their father are;
- 63% of youth suicides
- 70% of juveniles in State Institutions
- 71% of High School dropouts
- 75% of children in drug abuse centres
- 85% of children with behavioural problems
- 87% of juvenile offenders.
- 90% of homeless and runaway children
Quote #1 Custody laws should make it clearer that separated fathers are not
entitled to a 50-50 time split with their children, after the sweeping
reforms of 2006 led parents to focus more on their rights instead of their
children's needs.
"Family violence" is (and will be) the trojan horse being used by feminists
to undermine equal shared parenting.
Quote #2: Three major reviews of shared parenting laws have urged dramatic
changes to the family law system, including a major expansion of the
definition of family violence to include economic and emotional abuse, and
automatic violence risk assessments in all parenting court cases.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ)
Here is a web site that is a mine of information regarding recommended Judicial practices, rationalization and their ever increasing methods of how to promote, obfuscate and expand themselves into your underwear, personal/sex life and wallet. The theme as always unmitigated misandry with a profit and employment incentive.
http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/blogcategory/256/302/
http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/blogcategory/256/302/
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
- A non-custodial parents fundamental liberty interest in maintaining a relationship with his child and directing the child’s education and upbringing survives a divorce decree, Franz v United States, 707 F. 2d, 582, 594-95 (D.C. Cir 1983)
- The children would be benefited from spending quality time with the Plaintiff. The fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children of their children resolves this case., Troxel et vir v Granville, No 99-139, US Supreme court, 530 U.S. 57: 120 S Ct 2054, June 5, 2000
- The interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children – is perhaps the oldest of fundamental liberty interests recognized by this court, Meyer v Nebraska 262. U.S. 390 (1923
- The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition. In light of the extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental rights of parent to make decision concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 US 205 (1972)
- Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, person faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections, than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs, Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745 (1982)
- Parent’s interest in custody of his/her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent how is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621, P 2d 437’5 Kansas App Div 2d 584 (1980)
- A parent’s right to the preservation of this relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from psychic importance to him of being raised by loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v US, 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983)
- The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5,9 and 14. Doe v Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; US D.C of Michigan , (1985)
- Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Thought First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v Burnds, 96 S CT 2673; 427 US 347 (1976)
- Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” Meyer v Nebraska, 262 or 426 US 390; 43 S CT 625 (1923)
- The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this amendment (Ninth) and Utah ’s constitution, Article 1 & 1. In re UP 648 P 2d 1364; Utah , (1982)
- Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children, In the Matter of Hilary, SJC 10036, October 2, 2007 – February 5, 2008. Suffolk County
What taxpayers pay these Judges to follow and know the law
Department Last Name First Name Description Standard Hours Annual Rate 2008 Earnings
Trial Court Manzi Mary Mccauley Justice 37.50 $129,694.00 $129,693.98
Trial Court Cronin John P First Justice 37.50 $129,694.00 $129,693.98
Trial Court Manzi Mary Mccauley Justice 37.50 $129,694.00 $129,693.98
Trial Court Cronin John P First Justice 37.50 $129,694.00 $129,693.98
Judges acting badly behind the closed doors of court
By Renee Dudley
Sunday, April 4, 2010 - Added 10h ago
http://www.bostonhe rald.com/ news/regional/ view/20100404see king_safer_ halls_of_ justice_bay_ state_judges_ urge_tougher_ sanctions_ for_threats_ on_courts/ srvc=home&position=7
In the wake of persistent courthouse turbulence, a group of Massachusetts judges wants to toughen the punishment for offenders who make threats and use violence against judges, jurors, witnesses and other courtroom personnel.
Nearly 60 percent of the Massachusetts trial judges who responded to a recent survey said they had been targeted by verbal or written threats during their careers, according to a new report. Another 21 percent of the judges said they believe their families are at risk because of threatened violence.
To help stem the rage, the Massachusetts Judges Conference submitted a proposal to state legislators last month that would:
Make assault and battery committed against judges and court personnel - currently a misdemeanor offense - a felony.
Expand witness intimidation laws, which apply only to criminal cases, to civil proceedings.
Make disruptions on court property a felony offense.
All three new laws would carry prison sentences up to 10 years, according to the groups proposal.
Officials said they want to stiffen the laws to deter offenders as technology makes it easier to find and threaten judges and others involved in court proceedings.
A simple online search could lead an upset convict directly to a judges home - and thats just the start, said Superior Court Justice Peter W. Agnes Jr., president of the Judges Conference, who said he has been the target of threats.
Less privacy makes people in general more vulnerable,he said.
According to the report, Safety and Security First,42,000 people visit Bay State trial courts daily, excluding jurors.
Our system depends on people coming in,Agnes said. I dont think they should feel unsafe, but I think we can do some things to make them even safer.
The report received responses from 190 judges in 2008 and 130 in 2009. The total number of judges in the trial court system is about 350, said Robert P. Clayman, executive director of the Massachusetts Judges Conference.
Technology isnt the only factor leading to threats and violence.
A hiring freeze in effect in the state trial court system since 2008 has created a dearth of courtroom employees, including security officers, Agnes said. You see a lot of empty chairs,he said.
The problem of courtroom safety and threats against court employees outside the courthouse is not unique to the Bay State.
cont>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
============ ======
Here is a letter I sent in.
Judges do bad things in court because
no one sees what they are doing.
Who has the money and the time to buy court transcripts
to read how bad judges rule?
This is why they do not want cameras in the courts.
The corruption would be seen.
============ ========= ========= =
To the Editor,
RE: Safer halls of justice.
Herald Apr. 4, 2010 by R. Dudley
AS Howie Carr always say, "the only
justice in the halls of justice is in the halls.".
Judges have ROYAL immunity from any injustice
they do against the rights of a citizen.
SEE: RANDALL 74 US 523
Judges are "delegates of the KING" and so are
not accountable to the subjects.
Why do you think our court still operate in the
1800's and not in the 21st century where all
courtroom proceedings would be broadcast?
I mean, why would a person get angry at a judge
who allowed police to plead the FIFTH as to
why they arrested that person.
Stoughton, Mass police are being investigated by
the FBI. Do you think these cops all went bad
overnight, or do you think the Stoughton District
court judges turned a blind eye to their corruption?
Too funny. Let us turn the "Sunlight" on into our
courts to see just how bad the judges are.
Broadcast all courtroom proceedings so judges
do not let cops plead the FIFTH anymore as they
did against me.
By Renee Dudley
Sunday, April 4, 2010 - Added 10h ago
http://www.bostonhe rald.com/ news/regional/ view/20100404see king_safer_ halls_of_ justice_bay_ state_judges_ urge_tougher_ sanctions_ for_threats_ on_courts/ srvc=home&position=7
In the wake of persistent courthouse turbulence, a group of Massachusetts judges wants to toughen the punishment for offenders who make threats and use violence against judges, jurors, witnesses and other courtroom personnel.
Nearly 60 percent of the Massachusetts trial judges who responded to a recent survey said they had been targeted by verbal or written threats during their careers, according to a new report. Another 21 percent of the judges said they believe their families are at risk because of threatened violence.
To help stem the rage, the Massachusetts Judges Conference submitted a proposal to state legislators last month that would:
Make assault and battery committed against judges and court personnel - currently a misdemeanor offense - a felony.
Expand witness intimidation laws, which apply only to criminal cases, to civil proceedings.
Make disruptions on court property a felony offense.
All three new laws would carry prison sentences up to 10 years, according to the groups proposal.
Officials said they want to stiffen the laws to deter offenders as technology makes it easier to find and threaten judges and others involved in court proceedings.
A simple online search could lead an upset convict directly to a judges home - and thats just the start, said Superior Court Justice Peter W. Agnes Jr., president of the Judges Conference, who said he has been the target of threats.
Less privacy makes people in general more vulnerable,he said.
According to the report, Safety and Security First,42,000 people visit Bay State trial courts daily, excluding jurors.
Our system depends on people coming in,Agnes said. I dont think they should feel unsafe, but I think we can do some things to make them even safer.
The report received responses from 190 judges in 2008 and 130 in 2009. The total number of judges in the trial court system is about 350, said Robert P. Clayman, executive director of the Massachusetts Judges Conference.
Technology isnt the only factor leading to threats and violence.
A hiring freeze in effect in the state trial court system since 2008 has created a dearth of courtroom employees, including security officers, Agnes said. You see a lot of empty chairs,he said.
The problem of courtroom safety and threats against court employees outside the courthouse is not unique to the Bay State.
cont>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
============ ======
Here is a letter I sent in.
Judges do bad things in court because
no one sees what they are doing.
Who has the money and the time to buy court transcripts
to read how bad judges rule?
This is why they do not want cameras in the courts.
The corruption would be seen.
============ ========= ========= =
To the Editor,
RE: Safer halls of justice.
Herald Apr. 4, 2010 by R. Dudley
AS Howie Carr always say, "the only
justice in the halls of justice is in the halls.".
Judges have ROYAL immunity from any injustice
they do against the rights of a citizen.
SEE: RANDALL 74 US 523
Judges are "delegates of the KING" and so are
not accountable to the subjects.
Why do you think our court still operate in the
1800's and not in the 21st century where all
courtroom proceedings would be broadcast?
I mean, why would a person get angry at a judge
who allowed police to plead the FIFTH as to
why they arrested that person.
Stoughton, Mass police are being investigated by
the FBI. Do you think these cops all went bad
overnight, or do you think the Stoughton District
court judges turned a blind eye to their corruption?
Too funny. Let us turn the "Sunlight" on into our
courts to see just how bad the judges are.
Broadcast all courtroom proceedings so judges
do not let cops plead the FIFTH anymore as they
did against me.
My Letter to Chief Justice in regards to Restraining Orders
Chief Justice Paula Carey,
Two Center Plaza
Boston,Ma 02108
You have ask that I contact Jocelynne Welsh, I have, and she has never responded to any of my emails or phone calls, So I write to you today requesting comments for segment in an upcoming show, in regards to 209A and how they are issued. In a recent show,the public at large asked questions, that this show was unable to answer directly, and in an effort to provide them with some answers, we asked some members of your staff,.and We received different answers to the same questions in 4 out of 5 courts. These courts included, Lawrence,
Salem, Haverhill, Lowell, Cambridge, and Canton Ma,
We have received information, that was provided to the show, that clearly shows an abuse in 209A Let me explain,
A judge in Salem probate court has issued a 209A, based on what looks to be a third party hearsay. A complaint was filed by the father early that day, and later that afternoon the mother applied and got a 209A.
In her own handwriting she claims she was told by another person that the father was out of control because he was asking questions about his children, she apply and received a 209A based on an alleged incident she was not party too.
The next day the father had gone down to the court, along with a member of the show as an observer, and he was given another story, The staff stated that he would have to wait for the return date, in order to have it heard, when we asked the question after introducing our self, we were then asked to speak to the register of Probate, Pam Casey.
During our conversation, Mrs. Casey stated "the Judge are the ones to issue the orders, not her Department", but she seem to be helpful by providing the father with information that would allow him to get him heard sooner than what he was told.
On Monday a couple of members from my staff, had gone to the Salem probate court after being informed of the hearing date, where we witnessed another Judge vacated the order 209A, and never asked a question to the father about the order.
The Hector Montalvo show would like your comments on how a judge decide when to issue an order?
If a order is to be given, what are the guidelines that a Judge has to follow in order to issue one?
What is the purpose of a 209A? Are kids including in these 209A, and if so why? Why does one Judge feel the need to vacate a order, after another Judge from the same court issued one 3 days before?
The other puzzling thing a lot of people are asking, is that there is no clear way to file a complaint against a court staff worker, court officer, judge or anyone that works with in the court system" Who is the checks and balances of the court? Why is the process not clearly spelled out anywhere, like when you can file a complain against a police officer. Where is the Internal Affairs of the court system?"
The staff and myself would like to thank you for your reply and extend an open invitation to our studio for a chance for rebuttal.
Permanent RO's separating parent's from their children:
If anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have a more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures Santosky v. Kramer , 102 S.Ct. 1388
The object of the proceeding is "not simply to infringe upon [the parent's] interest . . . but to end it"; thus, a decision against the parent "work[s] a unique kind of deprivation." Lassiter Department of Social Services. of Durham County, 452 U.S. [18], at 27, 101 S.Ct. [2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981)]. For that reason, "[a] parent's interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision . . . is . . . a commanding one." Ibid.
[A] termination decree is "final and irrevocable." Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (emphasis in original). "Few forms of state action are both so severe and so irreversible." Ibid. [In Santosky,] [a]s in Lassiter, the Court characterized the parent's interest as "commanding," indeed, "far more precious than any property right." 455 U.S. at 758-759, 102 S.Ct. at 1397.
Although both Lassiter and Santosky yielded divided opinions, the Court was unanimous in its view that "the interest of parents in their relationship with their children is sufficiently fundamental to come within the finite class of liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." Santosky, 455 U.S. at 774, 102 S.Ct. at 1405
On the application of RO's primarily against the male sex:
(My favorite quote:)
Laws and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" are discriminatory and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 S.Ct. 356 (1886).
The singling out of an individual for legislatively prescribed punishment constitutes a "bill of attainder" whether individual is called by name or described in terms of conduct which, because of its past conduct, operates only as a designation of particular persons. COMMUNIST PARTY OF U.S. V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD, 81 S.Ct. 1357, 367 U.S. 1, 6 L.Ed.2d 625, rehearing denied 82 S. Ct. 20, 368 U.S. 871, 7 L.Ed.2d 72.
Lastly a comment on VAWA as violating all the above enumerated rights:
“As long as defendant who abridges a plaintiffs constitutional rights acts pursuant to a statute or local law which empowers him to commit the wrongful act, an action under this subchapter (1983) is established.” Laverne v. Corning, DC NY 1970, 316 F.Supp. 629. (Civil rights)
That is to say you have a federal civil rights case!!
The object of the proceeding is "not simply to infringe upon [the parent's] interest . . . but to end it"; thus, a decision against the parent "work[s] a unique kind of deprivation." Lassiter Department of Social Services. of Durham County, 452 U.S. [18], at 27, 101 S.Ct. [2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981)]. For that reason, "[a] parent's interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision . . . is . . . a commanding one." Ibid.
[A] termination decree is "final and irrevocable." Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (emphasis in original). "Few forms of state action are both so severe and so irreversible." Ibid. [In Santosky,] [a]s in Lassiter, the Court characterized the parent's interest as "commanding," indeed, "far more precious than any property right." 455 U.S. at 758-759, 102 S.Ct. at 1397.
Although both Lassiter and Santosky yielded divided opinions, the Court was unanimous in its view that "the interest of parents in their relationship with their children is sufficiently fundamental to come within the finite class of liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." Santosky, 455 U.S. at 774, 102 S.Ct. at 1405
On the application of RO's primarily against the male sex:
(My favorite quote:)
Laws and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" are discriminatory and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 S.Ct. 356 (1886).
The singling out of an individual for legislatively prescribed punishment constitutes a "bill of attainder" whether individual is called by name or described in terms of conduct which, because of its past conduct, operates only as a designation of particular persons. COMMUNIST PARTY OF U.S. V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD, 81 S.Ct. 1357, 367 U.S. 1, 6 L.Ed.2d 625, rehearing denied 82 S. Ct. 20, 368 U.S. 871, 7 L.Ed.2d 72.
Lastly a comment on VAWA as violating all the above enumerated rights:
“As long as defendant who abridges a plaintiffs constitutional rights acts pursuant to a statute or local law which empowers him to commit the wrongful act, an action under this subchapter (1983) is established.” Laverne v. Corning, DC NY 1970, 316 F.Supp. 629. (Civil rights)
That is to say you have a federal civil rights case!!
Will the Court fix the problem?
Chief Justice Charles Johnson
Boston Municipal Court Department
Edward W. Brooke Courthouse
24 New Chardon Street
Boston, MA 02114
I am writing you to request information and clarification pertaining to the accessibility of the Commonwealth's Domestic Violence Registry.
M.G.L. c209A, s7 states that the Commonwealth maintains a "statewide domestic violence record keeping system maintained by the office of the commissioner of probation ."
This system is commonly referred to as the Domestic Violence Registry. It is my understanding that the DV registry contains the names of all individuals who are or were at any time a defendant in a c209A proceeding, regardless of the final outcome of the proceedings.
As part of a series being conducted by my show, I would like to know specifically what individuals, organizations and/or agencies have access to the information contained in the DV Registry. I would like to know what statute clearly states those entitled to access the information in the DV Registry.
I have been instructed that the information is available exclusively to law enforcement and various agencies. Can you tell me what law enforcement departments are allowed to access the information? In other words, is the information limited to local police departments, state police, all state and city law enforcement departments, and/or federal law enforcement departments? Can you please tell me with specified the criteria for the agencies that can access the information?
I have received complaints from my listeners and subscribers that the information is being made available to agencies for consideration in matters pertaining to gun licensing, adoption, child services, and employment.
I thank you for your assistance and cooperation in my request. I look forward to hearing from you shortly
Hector Montalvo
Producer/ Director/Host
Behind The Scene with Hector Montalvo
209A Restraing Orders,
ETERNAL ARREST RECORD on CORI
which will forever prevent you from getting certain jobs because of the FALSE ARREST RECORD that will
never be expunged.
You will be listed as a CRIMINAL OFFENDER for eternity.
In Massachusetts, it is CONSTITUTIONAL for a person
to be "stained" with a false arrest record.
No amount of INNOCENCE will ever expunge a false arrest record.
All government "justice" workers are "immune" from any unconstitutional act they might do under color of law in Massachusetts.
You can be arrested by police only to have those police plead the FIFTH and never testify why they arrested you in the FIRST PLACE.
In Massachusetts, it costs more for an innocent person to prove their innocence,
than for the state to convict a guilty party.
What is Chief justice Paula carey doing about this?
Chief Justice Paula Carey,
This show has asked you many times to either come on our show or provide a member of your staff to answer questions in which the tax payers who are funding you and your staff want answers to. This request has not been answered or is being ignored by your office.
We have information that we will be providing to the public on some findings that involves the Department that you are in charge of, This show will go forward with our intent to report our findings, We have giving you a chance to respond to our findings in regards to Judges sitting on the bench, Restraining order issues, Expugement of 209A, Rent free for the Department of Revenue, along with recording at the court house.
Although your office has provided some basic information on our questions, Your office has neglected to answer tough questions which our taxpayers are asking.
Chief Justice Carey, I ask you today, Is it true that Family and Probate Court are exempt from answering any questions posed to them by our taxpayers who fund your agency?
Is it fair to report that the Probate and Family Court system is not interested in working with groups that disagrees with the guidelines you have in place? Please give me something that I can give them.
If our show does not receive a response to our request, we will assume that your office has no objections to our findings, and that your office will acknowledge that many request for comments or statements were refused to be answered
We will inform the public and provide them with copies of letters or request made to your office, and proceed to report our findings.
I want to thank you in advance for any response and hope you have a great weekend.
Hector Montalvo
Producer/ Director/Host
Behind The Scene with Hector Montalvo
when family courts get it wrong
restraining order defendants risk:
restraining order defendants risk:
- loss of family;
- loss of home;
- loss of property;
- loss of income;
- loss of reputation;
- loss of employment;
- loss of career;
- loss of the constitutional right against self-incrimination, or of constitutional and civil due process rights;
- loss of the constitutional right to bear arms
- restricted constitutional right to freedom of speech;
- restricted constitutional right to freedom of association;
- restricted freedom of movement;
- financial ruin, for the accused and for the family of the accused;
- loss of constitutional parenting rights;
- devastation of a child’s parental relationship with the accused
