GENERAL
LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART
III.
COURTS,
JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND PROCEEDINGS
IN CIVIL CASES
TITLE
I.
COURTS
AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS
CHAPTER
215. PROBATE COURTS
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
Chapter 215: Section 56A Investigations
Section
56A. Any judge of a probate court
may appoint a guardian ad litem
to investigate the facts of any
proceeding pending in said court
relating to or involving questions
as to the care, custody or maintenance
of minor children and as to any
matter involving domestic relations
except those for the investigation
of which provision is made by section
sixteen of chapter two hundred and
eight. Said guardian ad litem shall,
before final judgment or decree
in such proceeding, report in writing
to the court the results of the
investigation, and such report shall
be open to inspection to all the
parties in such proceeding or their
attorneys. The compensation shall
be fixed by the court and shall
be paid by the commonwealth, together
with any expense approved by the
court, upon certificate by the judge
to the state treasurer. The state
police, local police and probation
officers shall assist the guardian
ad litem so appointed, upon his
request.
Attorney Barbara Johnson's
Comments:
The
compensation has been fixed at,
I believe, $35 per hour.
When the GAL is appointed, the
judge generally puts down a
specific number of hours.
Because it is rare for the
parties to look at the REFERENCE
OF APPOINTMENT filled out by the
judge, the # of hours is often
exceeded without consequences to
the GAL.
On the REFERENCE OF APPOINTMENT,
there are to boxes for checking
off.
One is for the Comm to pay.
The other for the parties to
pay.
Given that the statute says the
Comm shall pay, there need be NO
boxes.
Because of Memo 14, the CJAM --
or whoever is in charge of the
forms -- has added the
check-off box that says the
parties will pay. That is
contrary to sec. 56A.
When the judge fills out the
REFERENCE OF APPOINTMENT form,
the judge has to check off that
the Comm. will pay for X hours,
say 20 hours . . . at $35 per.
We know that they often do not.
They choose the other when they
think they can get away with it.
Go to the Register's Office and
ask to see both the form
REFERENCE OF APPOINTMENT and
MEMO #14. The memo might also
be on my website.
When the judge signs that
REFERENCE OF APPOINTMENT, it is
certified.
You just let the Treasurer's
Dept screw you while you were
suffering.
I recommend
any person being forced to pay
GAL fees call this law to the
judges attention.
Further,
just to put it on the record,
protest being told to pay the
GAL any amount of money as it is
unlawful. "I object to any order to pay this"
Further tell
the Judge you believe he is making
unlawful orders to you,
and you know it is not proper
or necessary to obey an unlawful
or unconstitutional order.
Demand he provide
you the STATUTE which authorizes
the party pays the GAL. Or
a statue giving him the authority
to make unlawful orders.
The judge may
ignore all this and still try
to force you to pay by sheer balls
and coercion because you are a
ignorant Pro Se.
When he sees
you know the SCORE, he wll
likely back down in trying to
save budget for other political
patronage jobs in the registers
office, probation officers, and
etc. When it comes him or the
porkbarrelers, he prefers to look
good.
Bill From VA
From Barbara
People,
Bob wrote "I see the
suit and reviewed it quickly but
could not see the real end result
easily. "
The suit he was talking about is
my suit against four judges.
The Complaint for that suit is at
Drano Series #57.
Then he wrote "Have judges
been instructed to obey this law,
or have they carved out a series
of excuses and loopholes to push
this burden on the clients in spite
of this very clear law the the state
should pay? "
The answer to the first part is
No, they have been instructed to
follow Judge Irwin's Memo #14, which
is a continuation of a policy begun
by a previous Chief Justice of Administration
and Management ("CJAM").
CJAM Irwin instructed judges, clerks,
family service officers, and others
in the system, to perform "means"
tests on the parties to actions
to which GALs were appointed.
I have never yet seen any means
test performed. So "they"
do not even follow Irwin's memo.
And Irwin and both his predecessor
and successor, all, have violated
section 56A, the GAL statute.
Judge Irwin's successor was Barbara
Dortch-Okara, who has since been
replaced by Robert Mulligan.
After his retirement from his CJAM
position, Irwin became, ironically,
a teacher of Constitutional Law
at Suffolk University Law School.
Memo #14 has also been up on my
website for a few years. It
is at
http://www.falseallegations.com/drano45-irwin-memo-14-022897.htm
After the Memo's release on 28 February
1997, there was considerable discussion
of it in the Lawyers Weekly.
After that, the legal community
lost sight of it. Lawyers
who became members of the Bar --
all those shiny young folks you
folks hire -- likely never heard
of Memo #14 and it is not something
easy to come across, particularly
when you do not know that it exists.
(This is why I have been so against
the "scumbag" remarks.)
DIGRESSION: I
think it was Joe Dunbar's lawyer,
now deceased, who had a copy of
it and attached it to an appeal.
The Appeals Court did nothing.
(Joe sent me a copy.)
So I began picking up the banner
and running with it. I had
not looked for it or anything
like it because I have always
disapproved of the appointment
of a GAL because there are no
standards by which GALs work.
I always challenge the court by
arguing that the proposed GAL
is not an expert, and insist that
I want a voir dire, which is an
evidentiary hearing on the credentials,
training, and experience of a
GAL. The judge has then
backed off from any appointment.
The last part of
my answer to Bob's question about
the "real end":
The U.S. District Court judge (George
O'Toole), as anticipated, dismissed
the case on the grounds of judicial
immunity. I had hoped he would
give me some meat on which the First
Circuit Court of Appeals could chew.
(One ALWAYS needs to give a court
a handle on which it can rest its
hat.) O'Toole not only gave
me nothing, he gave the First Circuit
nothing, so that court gave it a
one-word dismissal.
I then waited forever for the transcript
of the hearing on the A-G's motion
to dismiss before O'Toole, but she
had been terminated.
More than a year passed before I
received it. I then wrote
the Petition for Certiorari from
the First Circuit Court of Appeals
to the United States Supreme Court.
All the documents are on the website:
my Opposition to the A-G's Motion
to Dismiss, O'Toole's decision,
and my Petition for Cert.
In the Petition, I asked the SC
to define "good behavior"
and "bad behavior" as
they relate to judges. My
petition for certiorari was denied
last June (2004).
I'll have to sue another judge or
two in order to get another stab
at it. I have reason to believe
I would get cert the 2d time around.
So my answer to Bob is the same
I give to many of you: Go to my
website and read!!!!
I have also attacked the quasi-immunities
to people not actual judges.
See Barb v. the BBO et al pleadings
in the Drano Series on my website.
That has been up at the First Circuit
since last Fall. Given the
Mass. Bar Assoc's Task Force recommending
many changes in the way the OBC/BBO
operates, and the wonderful publicity
its efforts have been getting in
the Lawyers Weekly, I suspect that
the First Circuit will sit on my
appeal until the ball of wax melts,
and then will come down with some
decision.
I'll stick my neck out on a prediction:
the First Circuit's language will
encourage, if not force, the BBO
to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 of the
case against me. Count
1 -- all about my website -- is
what the Cout of Appeals will focus
on. I, of course, could
be wrong if the crystal ball in
my dreams has as much grime on it
as my reading glasses do.
Barbara
He doesn't think they are
linked. He is TELLING you that
he thinks they are linked. The
cogent argument is the wording
of the law.
Law fragments:
Statement-A: the GAL law
states that the Commonwealth
"Shall" pay,
Statement-B: the fee has
to be agreed upon by the
courts and certified by
the Judge.
Possible outcomes:
Regarding who shall pay, it
could be the state or the
defendant.
Regarding agreement of the
fee, it could be
agreed/certified by the
courts or not.
So there are 4 possible
outcomes:
Outcome-1. Commonwealth pays
and fee is agreed/certified
Outcome-2. Commonwealth pays
and fee is not
agreed/certified
Outcome-3. Defendant pays
and fee is agreed/certified
Outcome-4. Defendant pays
and fee is not
agreed/certified
Conclusion:
With 2 independent variables
those are the only possible
outcomes. For which of
those possible outcomes
(Outcome-1, Outcome-2,
Outcome-3, and/or
Outcome-4), are both
Statement-A and Statement-B
true?
Outcome-1? YES
Outcome-2? NO
Outcome-3? NO
Outcome-4? NO
Outcome-1 is the only
outcome that satisfies both
statements in this law. Any
other outcome violates the
law.
Barbara
your argument holds no water because
a single attorney or judge "finding
it" (this is their job after
all) should quickly spread
this knowledge to all. (how many
lawyers sit waiting hearing every
other case?) I think your
thinking is not clear. To
me this is literally PROOF of
conspiracy to any rational person.
It is statistically impossible
that all the lawyers do not know
this after many years without
an intentional effort to scam
the families and cover the truth.
HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE
OTHERWISE? This is total nonsense!!
Please
don't insult our intelligence
with arguments to the contrary.
"Not taught in law school"
- come on now - reminds me of
the movie "a few good men"
when Tom Cruise pulled out the
manual and asked: "How
did everyone know how to find
the mess hall when its not in
the manual?" This is just
a plain stupid argument. Since
when are lawyers, or anyone in
this day and age, suppose to STOP
LEARNING after school???!!!
These people are highly paid professionals
and at over $200 per hour MUST
be expected to keep up with relevant
changes to the law - anything
else is incompetence, sloth or
stupidity - likely all three.
Divorce lawyers are mostly SLIME
SUCKING SCUM without ethics or
any devotion to the needs of their
clients is the norm unfortunately
- rationalized with "I don't
want to piss the judge off".
The state of the court alone,
with laws broken at most hearings,
constitutional rights trampled
daily of the male sex class
(male only), 209a rulings without
any due process that take away
ALL our property and children,
effective slavery of men for the
benefit of women with 40% of our
after-tax income going to child
support (when this is about 4-6
times the actual cost of raising
a child by many independent measures,
BTW we should be paying 50%
but most men are happy to pay
more than that).
It is impossible to
explain this all away without
the full cooperation of the lawyers
and judges, who by silence, conspire
to take away the rights of men
(and in far few cases women) when
it is to their personal or the
court's benefit.
Your
defense of lawyers is idealistic
and for, it would seem, a small
minority.
Every
lawyer and judge should be totally
ashamed by the state of this system.
It destroys families and
children for profit and ANYONE
who has been through this system
knows this, just not how bad. If I came into a company that
was like this as a CEO I would
have no choice but to fire half
the people for ethics violations
and a long list of other incompetent
behavior.
I'm sure there
are decent attorneys somewhere
but you can't prove it by me. I
had 3 attorneys, 1 consulting
attorney, and a GAL (who also
is an attorney). Here is
my scorecard:
Attorney-1:
Useless but
a nice guy.
Attorney-2:
SLIME SUCKING SCUM
Attorney-3:
SLIME SUCKING
SCUM
Consulting Attorney: Excellent
(and interestingly enough, the
cheapest as well)
Barbara, our
opinions are formed by our experiences.
My conclusion is that the vast
majority of attorneys, not
100% but 60% based on my small
sampling, are SLIME SUCKING SCUM.
For the sake of humanity I hope
I'm wrong. I acknowledge
the possibility that I am wrong.
But my experiences to date tell
me otherwise.
----- Original
Message -----
Mike Carusi wrote:
I think that
most of them know the law and
are SLIME SUCKING SCUM.
----- Original
Message -----
Everyone needs to know the state
MUST pay for the GALs if you object.
This is the LAW in MASS. no matter
what anyone tells you. Judges
try to bully everyone into paying
themselves.
The lawyers, either don't know
this, or I suspect do know it,
and breach their fiduciary duty
to clients to stay on the better
side of judges - SLIME SUCKING
SCUM as far as I am concerned.
Here is the law copy again:
GENERAL
LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART
III.
COURTS,
JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND PROCEEDINGS
IN CIVIL CASES
TITLE
I.
COURTS
AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS
CHAPTER
215. PROBATE COURTS
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
Chapter 215: Section 56A Investigations
Section
56A. Any judge of a probate court
may appoint a guardian ad litem
to investigate the facts of any
proceeding pending in said court
relating to or involving questions
as to the care, custody or maintenance
of minor children and as to any
matter involving domestic relations
except those for the investigation
of which provision is made by
section sixteen of chapter two
hundred and eight. Said guardian
ad litem shall, before final judgment
or decree in such proceeding,
report in writing to the court
the results of the investigation,
and such report shall be open
to inspection to all the parties
in such proceeding or their attorneys.
The compensation shall be fixed
by the court and shall be paid
by the commonwealth, together
with any expense approved by the
court, upon certificate by the
judge to the state treasurer.
The state police, local police
and probation officers shall assist
the guardian ad litem so appointed,
upon his request.
Joe, please
forward this to the list.
my computer has been down since
my heart attack, so i have asked
Joe to forward this to all.
Since filing for custody I have
been in and out of court, and
ended up with over night visits
on Tuesday and ever other weekend,
along with Thursday from 3:00
to 9:00, and paying child support
of 24 dollars a week.
I requested a GAL to investigate
my daughters best interest The
judge didn't allow two names of
GAl's I suggested, but named one
of his own.
The GAL that was appointed by
the court charges 195 dollars
an hour and wanted a 4,000 dollar
retainer to start. A price tag
I couldn't afford.
On one I my weekend visits, cigarette
burn on her cheek. two mandated
reports talked about this and
decided it needed to be reported
to DSS. It was reported and DSS
screened it out because a GAL
was on the case investigating
my daughters best interest.
The GAL turned his back on the
issue, after knowing the mother
has in the past put cigarettes
out on my body.
Than i had to give up my
apartment because of my heart
attack and I moved in with my
sister for a while.
Because The
GAL wasn't getting paid, so he
from Florida (on vacation) called
the mother to suspend my visits,
the went to court with me or my
attorney knowing, and my visits
were suspended, to top it off
the GAL bills me 500 plus dollar
for his court appearance.
A week later my visits were reinstated,
and I was billed another court
appearance, but this time I Paid
both the GAL and my attorney.
and both attorneys threatened
jail if I didn't pay the GAL.
A phone call to my mother in Florida
to borrow money to stay out of
jail.
My attorney talked to my mother
than handed me back the phone,
and my mother was crying and up
set because my attorney told my
bother to charge it and than file
bankruptcy.
After court I called my mother
back and talked about not paying
the GAL because of his service
which proves to be more harmful
to my relationship with my daughter.
To make it worse, I picked up
my daughter and the mother told
me they were in the hospital most
of the day, having my daughter
checked out after being molested
by a neighbor. I asked the mother
why I was told after the fact
and the mother told me a school
official told her not to tell
me.
Meanwhile I found out the mother
told her attorney, who didn't
pass the information on to the
GAL or my attorney. The hospital
filed a 51A to DSS. Neither DSS,
the GAL or police did anything.
and the molester is still
living next door, and living as
a unreported sex offender.
Again the courts want me to pay
for this lack of my daughters
safety.
On March 21st I'm going to court
Salem probate. what's on is my
attorneys motion to withdraw
from my case after 20,000 dollar
bill, because I refuse to pay
the GAL for a service I wasn't
getting.
than a hearing on child support,
and my visits, finally a contempt
hearing for not paying the GAL.
My answer to
the GAL charges are a copy of
MGL Chapter
215 Section 56A, This answer was
suggested by a state police officer
working at the attorney Generals
office.
I fear the power
of the judge and lack of support
by my own attorney, will place
me in jail.
I would like
to fill the court house with supporters
of chapter 215 section 56A both
inside and out.
and in the event
of me being jailed, that I have
a team other than my family to
continue to protect my daughter
from further abuse by the mother.
--
Barbara C.
Johnson, Advocate of Court Reform
and Attorney at Law
6 Appletree Lane
Andover, MA 01810-4102
978-474-0833
email:
barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net
False Allegations:
http://www.falseallegations.com
Participating Attorney:
http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs2/user/browse.shtml
Campaign 2002:
http://www.barbforgovernor.com
-----
The judicial system is very
broken. It must be fixed.
There are four people who can
do the job:
Everybody, Somebody, Anybody,
and Nobody.
Everybody thinks Somebody will
surely do it.
It is a job Anybody can do.
But Nobody is doing it.
At least I'm trying. What are
you doing?
"Women are not men's life
partners, but rivals favored
by law."
Paul Craig Roberts, in "The
Wars We Can't Afford to Lose,"
citing Professor Richard T.
Hise, The War Against Men
Barbara C.
Johnson, Advocate of Court Reform
and Attorney at Law
6 Appletree Lane
Andover, MA 01810-4102
978-474-0833
email:
barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net
False Allegations:
http://www.falseallegations.com
Participating Attorney:
http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs2/user/browse.shtml
Campaign 2002:
http://www.barbforgovernor.com
-----
The judicial system is very
broken. It must be fixed.
There are four people who can
do the job:
Everybody, Somebody, Anybody,
and Nobody.
Everybody thinks Somebody will
surely do it.
It is a job Anybody can do.
But Nobody is doing it.
At least I'm trying. What are
you doing?
"Women are not men's life
partners, but rivals favored
by law."
Paul Craig Roberts, in "The
Wars We Can't Afford to Lose,"
citing Professor Richard T.
Hise, The War Against Men