AnatomyofaFraud.com
Pro Se against the System
Equal Justice for a Self Represented Civil Litigation the Courts of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts? Think again!
Speaking for myself and from my own experience, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts provides little justice for a pro se civil litigant.
Nearly every part of the system showed contempt for my actions, my filings, or, in
key instances, they were simply ignored. The impediments they place in front of a
self represented litigant, in favor of wealthy, well represented corporations, can
certainly not be considered Justice.
Before I address the troublesome “justice” I was afforded in this lawsuit, I have to acknowledge that it must be extremely trying for every single employee in the Massachusetts Justice system to deal with an unrepresented litigant, a civil litigant in my case. The system is designed for lawyers by lawyers. But the Fourteenth Amendment is a constitutional requirement that requires the STATE to provide equal justice, not me.
Allow me to detail some of the many barriers and impediments to equal Justice for
a self represented Civil Litigant in the state of Massachusetts:
I only state some
of those facts I can document.
- Finding an attorney to represent to you in civil litigation, against a wealthy corporation
at that, typically requires an initial commitment of tens of thousands of dollar.
When forced to appeal pro se in 2012, I had contacted and have cataloged over 60 Massachusetts law firms to help me, telling my story over and over. A few were actually kind in their refusal. - 2012 From the date my prior lawyer filed with the court to be removed from the case, until Notice of Appeal was due, I had but days remaining to decide IF and HOW to file the Notice.
- The Filing requirements of an Appellate Brief & Appendix is a complicated series of rules and format. Under strict time constraints A lawyer not practicing appellate law would rarely attempt.
- After I filed my Pro Se Appeal, I digested 5 years of case law, 10 feet high case
records, learned format, and sought records from the Barnstable Clerks Office. Paying
$.25 per copy.
I would later pay for tens out thousands of copies to satisfy the requirements of the Appeals Court, Mass SJC, then Barnstable again, then the Mass Bar, who refused to return my final originals. - I Contacted the Massachusetts Courts Clerks Office, convincing them to give me password
protected access to see the Barnstable Docket, so I could see the Case, Motion and
Ruling History.
Yet as I show in an email with the State below, in 2015 they simply canceled access to this docket for everyone except lawyers. I’m fighting News Corp, and I have to contact THEM for docket status. - Appeals Court Docket, 5/1/13 I had to file a Motion “for entry of preliminary injunction”
#19, to stop the company from transferring the asset I sough tin rescission, to Parent
Dow Jones.
They had convinced the First Circuit they were autonomous from Dow Jones, then transferred ownership of the domain assets I sought in rescission, to Dow Jones. - - Appeals Court Docket, I had file a Motion “to require appellee to adhere to Rule
1:21”, to force Counsel to file Corporate Disclosure Statement”, as required, so
I knew who I was fighting.
It took until Oct 16, 2013 for CCT to filed this required document. Appellant “CCT a Division of Dow Jones” had become a wholly owned entry of News Corp in 2007. The Court could care less. - 2013 When CCT lawyers brief assured the Appeals Court that CCT “conceived of Bundles
in early 2003”, atop my Reply Brief was a photo of CCT 2002 Smoking Gun Bundle” plan.
They had CCT own 2002 $530,000 Bundle Plan for the sale posted on top of the reply Brief, counting $73,000 in 2002 Bundles, my company I the Title, and they held CCT Began Bundles in 2003. - When the “Facebook” Lawyer @ H&K llc Requested a delay from the Appeals Court, he
referenced My requests for continuances as an argument for his own.
My Recent Request was due to the fact I was the guardian of my elderly mother, who was about to have lung cancer surgery. I would have been on my 2nd advanced cancer at that date.
Katz’s request for delay asked the court to replace himself as lead lawyer for H&K representing CCT, to Mitchell, who was about to leave the country for a few weeks. - 2014 When I learned to file a Rule 60b Motion in Barnstable Superior, accusing CCT
lawyers of fraud upon the Court, the Clerks Office contentiously refused to accept
it.
Informing me “this case is over, there is nothing to file”, I stood there shaking, fluid gathering in my healing wound, and thought I would be arrested on the spot. They took the Motion. - 2014 When I filed my 2nd Rule 60b Motion in Barnstable Superior, the Clerks Office
again refused to accept it.
H&K filed a counter “Motion Seeking Protection” from me, telling the court my Motions pointing out their fraud on the court “was consuming the valuable resources of the Court” and placing a burden on CCT. At That Point, their client had stolen my money, NM&F had stolen Summary Judgement, H&K had stolen the Appeal, and I was in a clinical trial fro advanced cancer. - 2015 When I filed my Motion For Reconsideration with Barnstable Superior, they sent Hearing Notice to my Prior attorney, then Ruled I had failed to show, and Denied the Request.
- 2014/2015 When I attempted to have the prior attorney removed from Barnstable, as
he had years earlier in Appeal Court, I was informed that ONLY the attorneys themselves
can withdraw.
So when Barnstable Ruled “represented by counsel, but chose to represent himself” It was actually the lawyer who had failed to withdraw, the system holding their own rules against me. - When I filed a complaint online with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, detailing the Mass 93 a violations of lawyers. I never heard back.
- 2015 When I filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Office of Bar Counsel for the
litigation fraud of lawyers, I was told they “would not investigate’.
When I appealed that, I was again told they would not investigate. I asked in writing that the thousands of pages of original case records, files and briefs be returned to me. They have not been returned. They charged me $.25 per copy, yet I sent multi hundred page volumes of Briefs and appendix to Appeals Court (7), Mass SJC (11?), And multiple copies to Mass Bar. And they keep my originals. - 2016 I spent many months preparing the 101 page Journal of this case, to send to
NM&F attorney Manning, identifying at least 17 instances where her affidavits are
proven to be false.
Instead of Correcting her false affidavits and those of successor counsel H&K, the lawyer with the retired Barnstable Superior Court Judge on her team convinced the Barnstable Police to send two Yarmouth mass Police Detective cars to my home, for a “Courtesy Warning”. The cops admitted had the same exact letter be sent by an attorney, that wouldn't have happened. - The state of Massachusetts had 71,000 lawyers in 2015. Opened 734 Complaints. Florida
has 95,000 lawyers. Opens 7,500 files a year to investigate misconduct.
In which state would YOU prefer to commit Fraud Upon the Court? At least my Contempt of Court is Legal.
Florida has 20% more lawyers than Massachusetts, opens 10x as many investigations.
Imagine a lawyer being denied access to something as important as the Docket, the
Record -
I believe this was the part of the Notice the Court said I failed to Appear. They
sent the Notice to my long withdrawn attorney, who failed to withdraw from Barnstable
when he withdrew for the Appeals Court. When I wrote the Court informing them of
this, they wrote back essentially saying it didn't matter.
I received this upon return
from NYC clinical trial. I NEVER stepped foot in a court the entire case. Imagine
if a lawyer hadn't been given Notice of Hearing!
Barnstable Docket. Note Item #30, July/August 2014. Barnstable still sending notice
to his former attorney (KML), who had withdrawn prior to the 2012 Appeal.
Also 8/21,
Court said “Plaintiff has chosen to file this motion pro se despite the fact that
plainti counsel remain in active status” -
The Appeals Court judge who wrote this opinion below, about holding pro se litigants responsible for Fraud Upon The Court, was on the 3 member Appellate Panel who ruled in my case on 12/23/13, “After the sale, Cape Cod Times began BundlIng...” Falling for the Planted January 9, 2003 Bundle defense.. When the Client and it’s records PROVE CCT had plotted Bundles in 2002.
The FACT IS, Holland & Knight lawyers repeatedly, systematically, and knowingly,
lied to the Appeals Court about 2002 Bundles.
IN FACT, the same lawyer who swore to
Her Honor that Bundles Began in 2003, THEN told the Barnstable Court that Cape Cod
Times “disclosed and presented” Bundles to me in 2002!
AND IN THE JUDGES WORDS, THERE
IS NO REASON THESE LAWYERS FOR A FEE SHOULD BE “INSULATED FROM FRAUD UPON THE COURT”
. I AGREE YOUR HONOR!
Massachusetts is NOT abiding by the Fourteenth Amendment, it has denied me equal protection of the laws. Perhaps I can use the First Amendment, my right to free speech, to correct that error?
Lawyers talk often about the stress on client when engaged in extensive litigation. Well NM&F listed a retired Barnstable Superior Court Judge on the team opposing me, I see among the 10 foot high documents my former attorney sent to my home when I had to appeal pro se in 2012. And H&K fought me in Appeals Court with a lawyer who was involved in Facebook Litigation. I was pro se.
This Boston Bar study of self-
In This Case, Fontaine V Cape Cod Times, so deferential were the Courts to the Affidavits of Lawyers, that the words of a pro se litigant, and even the evidence itself, was simply ignored.
CCT won this suit because it’s lawyers convinced both courts they Could Not be guilty of concealing Bundles during 2002 negotiations, claiming they hadn't even conceived of “Bundle” advertising, until 70 days after the p&s. On January 9, 2003. Their lawyers briefs and affidavits vouched for Exhibit 19, a January 9, 2003 “Bundle proposal” as evidence of the birth of CCT’s Bundles.
As I pointed out to the Court, the client fully admitted in deposition that CCT had been Marketing these Bundles back to 2000. I placed a 2002 CCT Bundle plan for THIS sale atop my Reply Brief. So as Nutter McClennen & Fish swore to the Barnstable that CCT “conceived” of Bundles on January 9, 2003, Holland & Knight was forced to sell the Appeals Court CCT had “disclosed and presented” Bundles in 2002.
Both courts found CCT “could not” be guilty of hiding bundles in 2002 because Bundles
began in 2003. But the Smoking Gun, CCT’s 2002 plan to Bundle to steal my business
sits atop my Reply Brief.
The Ad Manager, the Internet Manager, NM&F (CCT sof 52)
H&K (disclosed), the Smoking Gun, EACH prove January is FRIVOLOUS. CCT had Obviously,
Admittedly. Plotted Bundles before Jan 9, 2003.
Another absurd inequity in the Massachusetts “Justice” System:
I have literally spent hours a day for nearly every day I have not been medically sedated, over the past decade, delving on and reconstructing the evidence of these crimes. Thousands of Hours. Many thousand.
Yet had I been able to obtain legal representation, I would have been able to add my legal expenses to any ultimate award I may realize.
But, because I could not afford a lawyer, the hours I have been forced to spend in search of justice are not subject to compensation, By Law.
Perhaps there’s a legal argument to be made that my wife and children should be compensated as an injury, for loss of consortium caused by the tort of this wealthy company and experienced law firms? I hope so.
Having noted the 14th amendment and Massachusetts obligation to provide equal justice, and not just to those who can afford it, Let me point out, this 1998 major study by the Boston Bar, published by the American Bar Association, discussing the state of pro se litigation.
You will find that Massachusetts has done LITTLE to resolve the flaws in the Legal
System, that cause LESS than equal justice for pro se Litigants.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/delivery_legal_services/ls_del_bostontaskforce.authcheckdam.pdf