Home Recommended Products Contact Us
 
 
Home
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Donate
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
 
 
Signup for Newsletter
 
E-mail:  
 
 
Search Site
 
 
 
 
 
 
In Massachusetts The STATE MUST Pay For GALs If They Appoint One
Your should Object  as hey are almost always just a scam to extract more money from couples and force them out of court

 

 

lthough almost everyone in the know seems to agree that the appointment of GALs is a waste of time and money and can hurt you, but hardly ever help you, judges are making a habit of intimidating people into paying for this when they know damn well, or should that this is NOT the law.  I have to conclude they are unethical, as it is impossible for me to believe I can find this out in a few weeks involved in a divorce and they don't know this law after many years doing it 40 hours per week. Just goes to show how concerned they are about their budgets. I would like to see where that $140 million kickback for increasing child support goes. Some people think it "disappears" in the court house.

Everyone needs to know the state MUST pay for the GALs if you object.  Do not ever sign any agreement agreeing to pay.  It is your right NOT to and this will also discourage the judge from getting more of their cronies involved.  This is the LAW in MASS. no matter what anyone tells you - SEE BELOW.

Judges try to bully everyone into paying themselves.   The lawyers typically, 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 and will ot tell you this - SLIME SUCKING SCUM as far as I am concerned.

Please SPREAD THE WORD.

 

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.

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. 
 

From: The Fatherhood Coalition [mailto:FATHERS-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM] On Behalf Of Barbara C. Johnson
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 4:58 PM
To: FATHERS-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Subject: Re: On lawyers not knowing the law - And arguing that this is somehow OK

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.

Bob


FORM ANIHER VICTIM OF DIVORCE LAWYERS:

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

GAL:                        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.

Please SPREAD THE WORD.

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.


From: Michael Molligi [mailto:mamolligi@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 10:36 PM
To: HappyDads@aol.com
Subject: update

 

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.

Thank you

Elmer Stratton

--
 

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