united states presidential 2012 stephen d macmillan republican site map google

Scully, Jack Scully, Nancy Gould, Gould, restraining Order, Probate & Family Court, contempt, Boston, false arrest, false imprisonment, complaint, false allegations, false accusations, recovered memories, sexual assault, child molestation, rape, sexual offender, pedophiles, custody, fathers, men's rights, grandparents, supervised, visitation, profiles, children, interview, memory, distortion, lied, lies, lying, divorce, fresh complaint, grand jury, guardian ad litem, mandatory reporter, pattern, behavior, physical examination, guilty plea, MMPI, TAT, Rorschach, penile plethysmograph, Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, CSAAS, Reactive Attachment Disorder, RAD, clinical, forensic, psychologists, neuropsychology, symptoms, videotaping, legal forms, motions, judicial immunity, qualified immunity, quasi-judicial immunity, agency, social services, lawyer, counsel, legal counsel, attorney, attorneys, Fells Acre, Ceci, Bruck, Hill, Jersey, Michaels, Wee Care, experts, ne exeat -->

 

 

Family Court Commits Crime: The Destruction of Evidence and the Obstruction of Justice

During a trial that threatens to become the longest divorce trial* in the history of Suffolk County Probate & Family Court ["P&FCt"], in Boston, Massachusetts, I uncovered unexpected evidence that points to the trial judge having committed a crime . . . evidence that she ordered the four tapes of an all-day court proceeding to be altered.  That judge is The Honorable Lisa A. Roberts. *Caused by the corruption, incompetence, bias and lying by the court (original judge removed from the case),  various court-appointed individuals,  the wife, and her three lawyers. My client and I have been exposing them since Day 1. We reconvene in Courtroom 6 on April 25th for Day 49. Other key folks are: Gouin, my client and a victim of invidious discrimination and crime in the family court against fathers.  His estranged wife, Dori Faith Chadbourne Gouin, a Harvard-educated attorney, class of '93, formerly employed by so-called prestigious lawfirms.  Her third lawyer, John DiPiano.  The court-appointed Discovery Master, Gerald L. Nissenbaum, on the Board of Editors of Lawyers Weekly and former president of the Massachusetts chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML).  Dori's prior, or first, counsel, E. Chouteau Merrill, appointed a family court judge in the middle of the divorce case and still a member of the AAML, albeit now an "honorary member," as are many of the P&FCt judges.  And Maria Rizzo-LaFace, an Assistant Register of the P&FCt who appears to have put in motion the dastardly deed for Judge Roberts. Hoping to avoid my need to call as fact witnesses the now-sitting-Judge Merrill and diverse personnel from the Register's Office, Judge Roberts admitted my documentary evidence into trial.   (Dori's counsel stipulated to their authentication after reviewing the originals in the Register's Office.) NOTE Register Richard Ianella and his staff deserve kudos  for their gracious, friendly cooperation  with my quest for the revealing documents,  which I scanned in and included in this file below. I believe that Judge Roberts might have been ordered by Sean M. Dunphy, Chief Justice of Administration and Finance of the Probate & Family Court, to deny me access to the witnesses.   My belief arises out of my unsuccessful attempt two days earlier to meet with Dunphy and find a mutually satisfactory, reasonable, and rational way short of scandal to address the problems in family court, including the tampering with the tapes. "Be a Hero today or a Devil tomorrow," I challenged him.  He chose to be a Devil . . . and refused -- through his assistant, Sonya -- to meet.   Dunphy proved he is a failed administrator.  P&FCT is, most lawyers practicing there agree, a Wild West Show.  It is NOT a respected forum of justice. This file is divided into three sections: (1) the background, (2) the exciting. incriminating documentary proof of the crime, and (3) the motives.


 

The Background

Since January 2001, when I took over the case from another counsel, my client and I have been in a document fight with Dori's three lawyers and the so-called Discovery Master ["DM"], Nissenbaum, whom I would NOT recommend as a DM or as a lawyer to anyone. Ultimately the spotlight fell on a real-estate appraisal completed in August 2000: "the FSI appraisal."  A letter from Merrill [Trial Exhibit 217] suggests that the appraiser was agreed upon by Merrill and Gouin's prior counsel; that is, it was a "joint appraisal."  On 7 August 2000, FSI estimated that the fair market value of the property was $188,000. But on Dori's Financial Statements in March 2000 [Tr.Exhs. 44-45] and on 7 August 2000  [Tr.Exh. 51], Dori claimed -- and Merrill signed and vouched for the truth of Dori's claim -- that the fair market value of the property was half a million dollars, a difference of $312,000. Had Judge Gould, who sat on the case until October 2001, used Dori and Merrill's $500,000 figure as the value of the Gouin's Pelham property -- which was likely -- and had Gould divided the property 50-50, Gouin, who wanted to hold on to the property, would have had to buy Dori out for $250,000 (half of $500,000) instead of $94,000 (half of $188,000).  In other words,  Gouin would have been defrauded out of $156,000. I had an obligation to get my hands on that FSI appraisal.  With it, I was sure I could save my client well over a hundred thousand dollars.  At the time, I knew the property had been assessed by the town at $192,000. Merrill denied that the joint FSI appraisal existed, but she lied.**  [Tr.Exh. 106 (contents not admitted).]   Dori's second lawyer, Raymond Sayeg, denied that it existed, but he lied.   Dori's third lawyer, DiPiano, denied that it existed, but he lied.  They all wanted another appraisal, . . . for they needed to buy an appraisal that would justify Dori and Merrill's $500,000 highball figure for the Pelham property on Dori's Financial Statements. **Judicial Nominee Merrill also MISrepresented to Judge McHugh  that the marital estate was a $1 million estate,  and for that reason the couple could afford to pay the GAL fees . . .  and that, anyway, the statute had NOT been followed  all the years she had been practicing in P&FCt. [Tr. Exh. 214, page 33.]  (At the bottom of this file is an excerpt from Merrill's argument to Judge McHugh.  Her lies are many.  Merrill is dirty, very dirty.  She should never have been seated on the bench.  She MUST be removed.) And Nissenbaum, wanting to build up Brownie points with Merrill -- because she was newly appointed to the bench and he would likely one day appear before her -- recommended to Judge Roberts that the new appraisal be done. Paragraph from Nissenbaum's 4/18/02 report to the court. In the meantime, I did a little sleuthing, learned who the FSI appraiser was, and then subpoenaed the appraisal.  Dori's counsel and the DM convinced Lisa Roberts to preclude me from using that appraisal, which was at that time only a year-and-a-half old.  They did not need a new inspection.  All they needed were new comparables to bring the appraisal up to date. When they argued for the new appraisal, I argued that the judge would be aiding and abetting the cover-up of attempted fraud were she to allow their motion to forbid me from using the FSI Pelham appraisal for impeachment purposes.  That fact did not seem to bother Roberts.  She forbade me to use the FSI appraisal.   (But before she did that, I had attached it to a complaint in federal court.)  Roberts also forbade me from using the appraisal during the divorce trial. Ask yourself why Judge Roberts would intentionally cover up attempted fraud.  To cover now-Judge Chouteau Merrill's butt!  She began the deep-6-ing of the FSI appraisal.  It would not look very well to find Merrill responsible for orchestrating a scheme to attempt fraud just prior to becoming a judge -- particularly where I informed the Governor's Council of that fact!      JUST ANOTHER OF MERRILL'S LIES Merrill -- who is now known as "the Virtual Visitation judge" -- also admitted to another lie, which she called a "mistake."  That so-called mistake, which she continued to make to the court and to me for 6 months,  was that Gouin, his prior counsel, Dori, and she had signed a stipulation to pay the guardian ad litem ["GAL"] fees from an escrow account.  That account was funded by Gouin with $43,500 cash -- his share of certain marital funds by agreement between himself and his wife. Merrill had been named as the escrow agent and was ordered not to remove money from that account without written permission of the court. But the Law was not to apply to Merrill.  She held herself above it.  She finally admitted to Judge James McHugh, III, in the Appeals Court single-justice session on 7 August 2001, the falsity of her statement that there was a written agreement to withdraw funds to pay the GAL's fees. Even if there had been an agreement, it would have been illegal and void from the very beginning, for the GAL statute requires the Commonwealth, NOT the parties, to pay the GAL fees. And, of course, Judge McHugh did nothing.  Instead of ruling  (1) that Judge Gould had violated the GAL statute, or  (2) that Merrill, whose judicial nomination had been announced but a week prior to the hearing, was in contempt of a court order, or (3) that Gouin was entitled to the restitution of the fees unlawfully removed from the escrow account, Judge McHugh denied Gouin's appeal and called my argument "bombastic":  He did not like me arguing the Principles of the Nuremberg Trials. The new appraisal of the Boston condo was scheduled by Judge Roberts to take place on the morning of Monday, 13 May 2002.  Gouin was there as ordered, to make the property available for inspection.   But, as soon as DiPiano arrived at the condo for the appraisal inspection, he and Dori called 911 and falsely reported to the police that Gouin was violating the Maine restraining order Dori had obtained against him.  It was a vicious attack on Gouin's freedom.  Gouin was simply obeying Roberts' order to open the condo and allow the appraisers to inspect it.   Nevertheless, even knowing about Roberts' order, a female detective, Susan James, in the Boston Police Department and subsequently the District Attorney of Suffolk County brought forth a criminal charge against Gouin.  While Roberts had no power in the criminal court, she had the power to sanction Dori in a variety of ways, but she did not.  Judge Roberts did nothing to correct the situation.   Such is the invidious discrimination against men in the courts and the entire judicial system.  Why did his wife Dori do something so evil?  Because she learned she can . . . from the courts. Around noon that same day, Dori was to be deposed by me, Johnson, at Nissenbaum's office.  There, at her depo, two things happened.  (1) Dori admitted having seen the FSI appraisal in the office of Raymond Sayeg, her second counsel.      Page 165 of Dori’s deposition, 5/13/02 (2) DiPiano lied to Nissenbaum: he told Nissenbaum that the appraisal did not go forward.            13            MR. NISSENBAUM:  Excuse me.  Did the           14   appraisal go forward this morning?          15            MR. DiPIANO:  Go off the record.          16            MR. NISSENBAUM:  We can go off the record.          17            MS. JOHNSON:  No.  It can be put on the           18   record.          19            MR. DiPIANO:  It didn't go forward. Page 35 of Dori’s deposition, 5/13/02  Nissenbaum’s turn to lie came during a hearing before Judge Roberts on 3 June 2002.  There, Nissenbaum claimed dramatically that Dori saw the FSI appraisal for the first time in Sayeg’s office after he was served with the Complaint docketed as 02-CV-10873-JLT.  [6/3/02 hearing.]  That was impossible because the Complaint was not served on Sayeg until 9:35 A.M. the next day, Tuesday, 14 May 2002, the day after Dori’s deposition.      Summons and Return of Service of Complaint on Sayeg. It's that lie which was erased from the tape of the June 3d proceeding. And on June 3d, at the hearing for which the tape has been altered, DiPiano lied again, saying, "I never mentioned to Mr. Nissenbaum the [Boston] appraisal did not go forward.  The appraisal did go forward.  Mr. Nissenbaum asked whether or not it had gone forward and I confirmed that it had . . . without my client being able to gain access."  This statement was not deleted, because DiPiano had not been alerted we were coming after him for lying.      Q      . . . And Dori, did she appear to want to come in?   A      No.   Q      She didn't want to come in either.  It appeared that way to            you, anyway?   A      It appeared that way, yes.  Excerpt from the divorce-trial testimony of Dori’s real-estate  appraiser, Goulet, at Volume 25, 9/20/02, page 5421. Judge Roberts has done nothing about Nissenbaum's or DiPiano's lies.  All she did, or so it appears, was both order the tape of an important proceeding and then order that it be altered.  We believe that in order to cover Chouteau Merrill's butt, she had to cover Nissenbaum's.  By doing that, now her own butt is caught in the web of deceit and destruction of evidence which Merrill began weaving:                                                                        3052           2           THE COURT:  Please listen to what I           3   said.           4                 Okay.  I'll do the best I can to get           5   you the tapes.  I don't know where they are or why           6   they are where they are.  I do know that           7   transcribing in the ordinary course, which is           8   probably Janet Eldridge's contract with the           9   Commonwealth, is no guarantee that things get done          10   on your timetable, mine, or anyone else's.          11                 She should not have been subpoenaed          12   to these proceedings for this purpose.          .............................................................................................                                                                       3053           1                 THE COURT:  The subpoena is quashed. Excerpt from the divorce trial, 9/10/02, page 3052-3053. Judge Roberts' feigning innocence is unpersuasive.  Unpersuasive, for on June 13th, 2002, Maria Rizzo-LaFace, the assistant register assigned to Roberts, ordered the tape and transcript for Roberts.  Although she left squiggle room in her statement (in red above) that she did not know where the tapes were that day, September 10th, Roberts' lack of forthrightness indicates that she, too, lied to everyone in the courtroom that day. This is the same judge who, in a recent proceeding, ruled that I could not put into evidence two statements by Judge Gould in a prior hearing in the same case.   [Tr. pages 265-266, marked "AA" for Id.]  Gouin had relied upon those statements for his actions.      THE COURT (ROBERTS): The hearsay exception is with respect to prior sworn testimony, as I understand it.  So if you are offering this transcript to prove what someone who is not under oath said in a private proceeding, I am moving that as inadmissible.  Note: It was during a proceeding in court!  How was it private?  MS. JOHNSON:  But as a judgeship, as someone wearing the black robe on the bench -- THE COURT:  Madam, please, I am not going to change my ruling.  I have given it a lot of thought.  I understand your position. MS. JOHNSON:  I understand yours.  You are really quite articulate.  And I think it's just charming, and I am really delighted.  On this one thing I have a problem, your Honor.  What you are saying is that a judge can lie like hell from the bench because they are not sworn.

jThe Documentary Proof


 

Document Marked at Trial for Identification as "JJ" with Barb's Comment

After hearing Nissenbaum misrepresent to the court on June 3d that Dori did not see the FSI appraisal until after the federal complaint was filed, and knowing that I was armed with Dori's statement that she had seen the FSI appraisal at Sayeg's office, I wrote the message on the left and FAXed it to Nissenbaum's office. Unfortunately, my GOTCHA message alerted Nissenbaum, who might, indeed, have played a role in the alteration of the tape.


 

Trial Exhibit 225 with Comment

Note:  that Order Form 29270 was filled out on June 5th, 2002,    that the Ending Index Numbers for the four tapes are  3672 3670 3677 and 1632 that Part II is not filled out.


 

Trial Exhibit 226 with Comment

Note that the tapes ordered on Order Form 29270 on June 5th, 2002, were not sent out to the Duplicating Center in Springfield for copying until September 12th, 2002, three months after the tapes were ordered. According to the Register's office, the original tapes were let out to Janet Eldridge, who had been retained by the Com- monwealth for transcribing.


 

Trial Exhibit 227 with Comment

Note: that Maria Rizzo-LaFace ordered the tape for Judge Roberts   that the typed part was written on Thursday, June 13, that the handwritten part was written on Tuesday, Septem- ber 18, a day on which the parties were NOT in court that Gouin had a live court reporter from a top-shelf firm present in court on June 10-14 to transcribe the trial, but Judge Roberts wanted her own transcriber's version.  WHY?


 

Trial Exhibit 228B with Comment

On June 13, Lisa Campbell filled out Order Form 29342, but it did not have sufficient information on it.  So a white strip was taped over it. For instance, here Maria Rizzo-LaFace and/or the judge wanted transcriptions of the time the court was in recess.  This is unusual.  So the Begin and End  Indexes for the recess had to be added specifically. Given that the taping between sessions were secret and without the consent of those in the courtroom, the court violated the Wiretap Statute!!


 

Trial Exhibit 229 with Comment

Here is what is beneath the white strip on Order Form 29342.  I picked up the white flap and peeked beneath it. Note that the order makes clear that tapes for both June 3d and June 12th were given to Lisa Campbell on June 13th. Evidently Assistant Register Maria Rizzo-LaFace believed the tape clerk  would not have  included the Begin and End Indexes of that part of the tape on which the "recess" was recorded. So to be sure, she asked the clerk to specifically include it, causing the "white strip" -- shown in Exh. 228B -- to be added.


 

Trial Exhibit 230 with Comment

This is the receipt and transmittal slip supplied by the Post Office.  Note how it differs from the other receipt for transmitting the tapes of June 3d. The September 12th slip shows that the tapes were sent to the Duplicating Center in Springfield. But the June 13th slip shows that the tapes were sent DIRECTLY to Eldridge.


 

Trial Exhibit 231 with Comment

This is Trial Exhibits 229 and 230 stapled together as they were in the Register's Office, so as to show which receipt went with which Order Form. When I saw this for the first time last week, it A-L-L came together.  Janet Eldridge was fearful of showing:  one, that the court also ordered June 12th -- because when she transcribed it, she could tell a court reporter was present in court -- and two, that the recess (or "break") was recorded and transcribed upon order of the court. Big Brother Is Watching Us!


 

Trial Exhibit 232 with Comment

The tape indexes, as determined before they were put on Order Form 29342. Note that 0055 is missing. The tape had been shut off.  The judge then apparently ordered that it be put back on.


 

Subpoena Served on Secret Court Reporter with Comment

This was the subpoena served on Janet Eldridge.  An attorney, Matthew Beaulieu, appeared for her in court with a Motion to Quash the subpoena. If there had been no hanky-panky, there would have been no reason to secrete the tapes or the transcripts from Gouin. Given that he had given a down payment for the June 3d tapes, he was entitled, at the very least, to the tapes of that day. The June 12th tapes and transcript were, of course, a total surprise!!!


 

Trial Exhibit 194 (page 1) with Comment


 

Trial Exhibit 194 (page 2) with Comment


 

Page 3048 of Trial Testimony on September 10, 2002,  with Comment

This is an excerpt from the argument made by Matthew Beaulieu, attorney for Janet Eldridge, hired by the Commonwealth to transcribe the proceeding of June 3d, 2002. He was arguing in support of his motion to quash Gouin's subpoena for the tape and/or transcript of the June 3d hearing. Attorney Beaulieu argued that he believed that Eldridge could not certify as to the completeness and accuracy of the transcripts. Now, that is unusual!!!! Every certified reporter MUST certify to the completeness and accuracy of the produced transcript. Therefore, it is very curious, indeed, that Beaulieu believes Eldridge cannot certify that the transcript is complete and accurate. Is he admitting on her behalf that the tape is NOT or cannot be complete and accurate????? If so, why not???


 

Trial Exhibit 233 with Comment

When Gouin re-ordered on Order Form 29170 the four June 3d tapes on 10 Decem- ber 2002, the Begin and End Indexes of the four tapes had CHANGED!! Note: that the Ending Index Numbers for the four tapes are  3668, NOT 3672 3666 NOT 3670 3676 NOT 3677 and 1627 NOT 1632 that Part II is not filled out. ConclusionWhen the tapes returned from Janet Eldridge's possession, they were different than those sent to her by the tape clerk.


 

Trial Exhibit 234 with Comment

This is copy of Trial Exhibit 233 (Order Form 29170) with mail receipt superimposed (stapled together in Register's office), so as to show which receipt went with which Order Form.  Note that the "altered" tapes were sent to Springfield for copying.  These were, at Gouin's request, sealed, and remain so. The request for sealing was made so that Gouin cannot be wrongfully accused of altering the tapes.  He also ordered a third set, which remains in the Register's Office to this date.


 

.Trial Exhibit 235 with Comment

This is copy of Trial Exhibit 233 (Order Form 29170) with Part II filled out by the Springfield Duplicating Center. Because my copies are not top quality, I've taken the top from one copy and Part II from another copy. The original copies and the court exhibits may, of course be inspected. Note that there was a difference of $41 between the cost of the first set (received in September) and the cost of the second set (received in December).


 

Trial Exhibit 236 with Comment

This is the letter from Eldridge dated 14 April 2003, three days after we received the papers from the Register's Office. Is this for real? Do you believe the tape and transcripts had long since been sent to the Register's Office? I do. Is it realistic to believe the certified reporter took 10 months to prepare a one-day transcript???


 

Trial Exhibit 237 with Comment

This undated document was simply loose in the file.


 

Trial Exhibit 238 with Comment

On Friday, 11 April 2003, when I brought up the issue of that only two  tapes had ben produced to the court, the judge had another clerk, Mr. Minihan, find the four original tapes in the Register's Office. We know there are now four tapes filed as Trial Exhibit 197, rather than two, but we do not know whether they are the ORIGINAL originals of the tapes or the ORIGINAL ALTERED tapes.


 
 

Introductory Remarks to the Transcript of the Hearing on 7 August 2001 Before Judge James McHugh III at the Single-Justice Session of the Appeals Court

I filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of Gouin's motion for restitution of GAL fees paid by the parties as Judge Nancy Mary Gould ordered. Judge Gould violated G.L. c. 215, sec. 56A by her order.  But that is not all that she violated: she violated G.L. c, 209A by not giving Gouin his statutory 209A hearing, and G.L. c. 208, sec. 30, . . . and so on.  (See Drano Series #57.)  She also violated Gouin's constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of all the laws. On 14 August 2000, Judge Gould ordered Assistant Register Jack Scully to phone Merrill and inform her that the parties were not going to be allowed at the hearing at which the guardian ad litem was to be cross-examined about her recommendation that Dori, Gouin's wife, be allowed to remove the Gouin children to Maine.   (See the last three lines in the block below.)   Trial Exhibit 247 Dori did not care about being present at the hearing.  Gould had already decided the motion in her favor on August 8th, six days earlier.  But Gouin was a victim of Gould's secret order, nothing but a victim the entire time he was in Gould's court.  Gould had allowed the removal of his children without his consent and without an evidentiary hearing. Chouteau Merrill, now a circuit judge in the Probate & Family Court Department, represented Gouin's wife, Dori Chadbourne Gouin, a lawyer in her own right, at the hearing before Judge McHugh.


 
 

TRANSCRIPT OF 8/7/01 HEARING BEFORE JUDGE McHUGH AT THE 
SINGLE-JUSTICE SESSION OF THE APPEALS COURT

PAGE 31 18 MS. MERRILL: . . . 21 . . .            The 22 Commonwealth was not a party here. The 23 parties had agreed that they would privately 24 paid. That is ordinary custom and practice.	Comments by Barb Johnson The statement that there was an agreement is untrue.  See Merrill's admission below. The custom and practice appears true.
PAGE 32   1 It is even included in the Uniform Probate   2 Court Practices, Practice Roman Numeral   3 XXXII(D), that the Court shall examine   4 financial ability of the parties to pay for   5 all or a portion of the fees of the guardian   6 ad litem so appointed, and the parties shall   7 be notified by the Court of its intention to   8 assess the cost of the service of the   9 guardian ad litem against either or both of 10 them. 11           And that's very clearly included in 12 her order appointing Ms. Beardsley. But 13 also, more importantly, Your Honor, it was 14 agreed to, and it was agreed to between 15 counsel orally, as Ms. Johnson has referred 16 to in her supplemental appendix saying that 17 she listened to the tape and that it was not 18 objected to. 19           So she doesn't have the authority 20 now, a year later, to go back and say, 'Oh, 21 I'm going to reassess the fees to The 22 Commonwealth.' 23           I would say that under custom and 24 practice in this case, and pursuant to Judge	The problems raised are the following: A statute is to be followed.  A statute is  ratified by a legislature.  The Uniform  practices were written by a committee of few. The statute requires that the Common-  wealth pay the GAL fees. UPCP Rule XXXII(D) does not. The courts do not always assess the ability  of the parties to pay.  And Judge Gould certainly did not assess Husband Gouin's  ability to pay the GAL fees. Even if there were a stipulation, it would be void ab intitio -- from the beginning -- because it would have yielded a result  different from the result that would have been achieved if the statute were followed.
PAGE 33   1 Irwin's order, and the Uniform Probate Court   2 Practices, she would actually be precluded   3 from that because this is a million dollar   4 estate. The parties easily had the ability   5 to pay a guardian ad litem, and that is   6 usually what happens. It's very rare,   7 actually, that the guardian ad litem gets   8 paid by The Commonwealth these days.   9 THE COURT: Notwithstanding the 10 statute? 11 MS. MERRILL: Notwithstanding the 12 statute. The Uniform Practice rules. As a 13 matter of fact, this argument was made about 14 two weeks ago to a different Single Justice 15 on the same issue, and the answer came down 16 the same. Uniform Practice rules. There is 17 a conflict between the Uniform Practice and 18 the statute. But the way it's working now, 19 it's the Uniform Practice rules. 20 THE COURT: Now, let's go back to the 21 stipulation. Now, what in the record helps 22 me understand whether or not there was a 23 stipulation? What in the record now? 24 MS. MERRILL: What is in the record	Here is the "million dollar" whopper!   It's "rare" because all court personnel, including the judges have been ordered to DISOBEY the statute, G.L. c. 215, sec. 56A. McHugh was between a rock and a hard  place:  To admit that the Chief Justices of  the Trial Court had been acting unlawful  all these years or just overlook it.  He chose the low road and chose to  overlook the unlawful acts of the courts.
PAGE 34   1 is in the appendix that I filed. And again,   2 it is fairly circumstantial, but there are   3 two letters enclosing checks to Mass. General   4 Hospital, Children and the Law Practice, with   5 retainer fees enclosed. Both of those   6 letters were copied to Kevin Connolly, who   7 was the attorney at the time. Those are at   8 (i) and (k).   9           In addition to that, at Appendix Tab 10 (j) is a notation by Mr. Gouin himself noting 11 that he asked his attorney to call me and ask 12 me to send money from "his funds" to Barbara 13 Beardsley. That was very shortly after that 14 hearing. 15           At the hearing, we agreed that we 16 would pay her out of the escrow funds. And 17 that had to do with the fact that Mr. Gouin 18 did not have the income or the assets 19 available to him to pay his share. So it was 20 coming from joint funds held by me in an 21 escrow account. 22           So the circumstantial evidence in the 23 record that there was a stipulation and that, 24 in fact, Mr. Gouin knew about it and	The record shows that on December 27, 1999, Judge Gould ordered that no money should be removed from the escrow account without another order by the court. There NEVER was an order allowing the GAL to be paid out of that account. Gouin's Complaint for Contempt against his wife as principal for Merrill was dismissed by Judge Roberts without an evidentiary hearing and over the objection of Gouin. A Complaint for Contempt against Judicial Nominee Merrill would have been futile.  The law does not require the doing of a useless thing. Either Judge Gould or Roberts should have sua sponte -- on their own -- found Merrill in contempt. Gouin did NOT ask his prior counsel to tell Merrill to pay the GAL out of the account.  Merrill had already paid her. [Compare Tr. Exhs. 210, 211B, 212B with 216.]
PAGE 35   1 participated in it is the failure of any   2 objection coming from Mr. Connolly on those   3 payments to Mass. General Hospital, as well   4 as Mr. Gouin's own notation that he asked his   5 attorney to ask me to send $1,500 over to   6 Barbara Beardsley.   7 THE COURT: All right. There's no --   8 There is, however, in the record, no written   9 stipulation; is that right? 10 MS. MERRILL: There is no written 11 stipulation. And that was my mistake when I 12 was in Court on April 2nd or 5th, or whenever 13 it was that we were arguing about this. And 14 I recalled that there was a stipulation on 15 it. 16           My recollection of the time that we 17 entered the stipulation as to Barbara 18 Beardsley was mistaken. I believed that what 19 an oral order had been a written order. And 20 I apologize for making that mistake on the 21 record. However, that is not that unusual, 22 considering the volume of things that have 23 been filed in this case, especially since 24 January.	Connolly, Gouin's prior counsel, never explained or discussed with Gouin about the payment of the GAL fees.  And Merrill had absolutely no proof that that which she said to McHugh was true. Trial Exhibit 216, Gouin's contemporaneous notes of visits with his children and with the GAL, show that Beardslee told him on May 17th that SHE told Connolly to tell Merrill to get the money for the GAL from the account. Merrill admits her lie again.  It was a mistake, she claimed.  She was too busy to notice she had made a mistake. A mistake that cost Gouin between almost $14,000 and $16,000.  None of the three accountings supplied by Merrill and her lawfirm agree with each other or with Trial Exhibit 213 the bill from Mass. General Hosp.
PAGE 36   1           It is also, as you asked Ms. Johnson,   2 custom and practice that the parties, through   3 their counsel, agreed to the appointment of a   4 guardian ad litem, and to the method of   5 payment. That is the custom and practice.   6 I have practiced in the Probate Court   7 now for eleven years. This is what I do   8 every day. We always agree. Every MCLE   9 seminar that you go to now about appointing a 10 guardian ad litem says if you don't agree, 11 it's malpractice because the Court has to go 12 to a list of people on a list -- and you can 13 have Joe Blow, the plumber on that list, if 14 he's got the educational background to 15 supposedly be a guardian ad litem. 16        Being a guardian ad litem in a case 17 like this where contested custody is the 18 issue and there are cross-allegations of 19 abuse requires a specialist, somebody who is 20 very good at what they do. And you're not 21 going to get somebody like that by going to 22 the list. 23           Every qualified attorney goes into 24 Court with either an agreement as to who the	There is absolutely no study or statistics or other proof that the GALs on the court list are worse, the same, or better than the GALs who are privately selected and paid. If the GALs on the list are worse, as Merrill contends, then every indigent parent who receives a court-paid GAL is the victim of economic discrimination, or is screwed.
PAGE 37   1 guardian ad litem is going to be or, as we   2 did, three names that we have agreed on, and   3 ask the Judge to pick from the three names   4 because there's a question of one client or   5 the other saying 'I don't want to take the   6 one that was proposed by the other side.'   7 THE COURT: All right. Anything   8 else?   9 MS. MERRILL: That's it, Your Honor. 10 MS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, may I 11 respond? Just two sentences. 12 THE COURT: Two sentences. Two 13 sentences. 14 MS. JOHNSON: Thank you. I want to 15 rebut one, Exhibit (j), Mr. Gouin's hand 16 notes. They do not say that he told Kevin 17 Connolly. If you read carefully, it says 18 Barbara Beardsley told Kevin Connolly about 19 whatever that thing. It's not Mr. Gouin 20 told. Barbara Beardsley told. 21           These are handwritten notes which Mr. 22 Gouin supplied as part of Discovery. 23 THE COURT: Well, Ms. Johnson -- 24 MS. JOHNSON: That's Number 1.
PAGE 38   1 THE COURT: Ms. Johnson? Just a   2 minute, Ms. Johnson. Now, I can read that   3 note just as well as anybody else can.   4 MS. JOHNSON: Okay.   5 THE COURT: And it says no such   6 thing.   7 MS. JOHNSON: It says, "Barbara   8 Beardsley, 10:30, told" -- Well, the subject   9 has never been part of the record, up until 10 the point it appeared in there. 11           And plus, I want to point out another 12 thing. That note -- One moment, Your Honor. 13 Let me catharsis. 14 THE COURT: No, no, this isn't 15 catharsis. This is argument. 16 MS. JOHNSON: Argument. 17 THE COURT: Now, you asked for two 18 sentences. 19 MS. JOHNSON: Okay. 20 THE COURT: You've got one and a 21 half, probably two. 22 MS. JOHNSON: Okay. Okay. 23 THE COURT: One more. 24 MS. JOHNSON: Okay. May I just
PAGE 39   1 finish one thing about that exhibit?   2 THE COURT: No. I've heard it. Move   3 on, please.   4 MS. JOHNSON:Just look at the date,   5 Your Honor, though. Look at the date on   6 Exhibit (j). It's after she had already   7 paid.


 
 

jThe Motives Merrill was covering Wife Dori's ass for lying on the Financial Statements. Nissenbaum was covering Merrill's ass because his personal finances  would benefit when he appeared before Merrill after she was appointed to the P&FCt bench. Judge Roberts was covering the court's ass by protecting Merrill, who was on the bench within a week or two of Judge Roberts being specially assigned to take over the case. Sayeg got cold feet.  He reduced the fair estimated value on Dori's Financial Statement from $500,000 to $300,000 and hired a new appraiser to give him a value close to that.  To do that, the appraiser had to recommend dividing a property that cannot be subdivided as is.  He also lied about seeing the "old" FSI appraisal, because he did not want me, Johnson, to impeach his new appraiser using the year-or-so-old FSI appraisal. When it appeared on the fourth day of trial that Sayeg would not suborn perjury by Dori, Dori fired him, which left co-counsel DiPiano on a team of one. Sayeg has been a shadow attorney counseling DiPiano by cell phone, at the very least, during the court recesses. DiPiano has not only been covering his own ass, but also Dori's, so that he has a better chance of getting paid by her -- between roughly $10,000 or $15,000 a week . . . depending on both his hourly rate and how much time he has spent in trial preparation each night after a day in court. It is yet to be seen whether DiPiano will help Nissenbaum cover his ass.

Enter your search terms Submit search form Web www.falseallegations.com www.barbforgovernor.com www.generationaldynamics.com Drano Series HomePage (Click) Feedback (Click) The Store (Click) #1,   Meuse #5,   Linnehan & Brown  #9,   Linnehan & Brown #13, Meuse #17, Linnehan & Brown #21, Linnehan & Brown #25, Sylvia v. Sylvia #29, Linnehan & Brown #33, Trimboli #37, Linnehan Related #41, Smith/Pocahontas #45, Smith/Pocahontas #49, Smith/Pocahontas #53, Smith/Pocahontas #57, Smith & Judges #61, Smith/Pocahontas #65, Linn. Dom. Rel. #69, Linnehan & Brown #73, 1st Cir. B&L Decis. #77, LyndaPaul-Child-sup #81, 1st Amendment/Bar #84a, Sano case/Banned in Mass. #88, Money from estate #90, Count 2: Answer Interwoven #93, Herald in on Bar War #97, Opposition to Nissenbaum #101, Judicial Immunity Roots #105 Barb's letter-Rule 1.15 (am. #109  Barb v. BBO (Federal) #113 Smith'sOpposition to Boston #116 Meuse's §1983 Complaint #120 Petition-Writ of Certiorari-USSCt #124 Meuse-Opp-to-NCMEC Dis #128-Letter-Petition-Rehearing #132 Pretrial-conf-Lafortune #136 Smith o-james-recons-dism #140 Smith o-sj-R 56.1 facts mp1 #144 surreply-to-offs-reply-recon #148 m-dismiss-jdp-ccs-malp-2 #152 contempts-Pocahontas & Smith ------------------------------------------------------- #156 strike-appearance-ag-for-bbo ------------------------------------------------------- #160 m-lv-excess-pp-brief #164 answer-to-contempt-petition #168 m-vacate-stay-and-consolidation #172 appeal-judgment-of-dismissal-app-ct #176  amended-motion-for-acceleration #180 reply-to-crane-weisberg-appellee-brf #184 appendices-to-petition-writ-for-cert #2,   Meuse #6,   Meuse #10, Meuse #14, Linnehan & Brown #18, GAL in Case #22, Linnehan v. Sylvia #26, Grandparents #30, Meuse #34, Linnehan Related #38, Smith/Pocahontas #42, Linnehan Related #46, Smith/Pocahontas #50, Smith/Pocahontas #54, Smith/Pocahontas #58, Smith/Pocahontas #62, Smith & Judges #66, Linn. Dom. Rel. #70, Linn.Child-support #74, Fraud-5-Lawyers #78, StupidButFamous #82, 1st Amendment/Bar #85, Bogus contempt, coming #89, Petition for Discipline #90, Count 3: Answer Interwoven #94, Restraining Order #98, Hearse at Lawyers Weekly #102, Bar Board:Star Chamber #106 Motions filed at Bar Board #110 Reply Appeal Immunity #114 The Younger Doctrine #117 Fed QuasiJudicial Immunity #121 Opp. to Dismiss by FOX TV #125 F4J London Parade Pics #129 Letter- Editor Lawyers Wkly #133-Barb v, BBO: App Brief #137 Smith-o-dipiano-recons-dism #141 Smith o-sj-Boston-memo mp1 #145 m-partial-recon-cc-wiretap #149 reply-o-dism-jdp-ccs-2d-mal #153 barb-v-bbo-crane-defamation ------------------------------------------------------- #157 strike-appearance-ag-for-BC-ABC ------------------------------------------------------- #161 m-str-docs-obc-record-appendix #165 m-declaration of-practice-of-law #169 o-impound-supp-appendix-record #173 show-cause-brief for hear'g-1st-Cir #177 motions-vacate-reverse-dismiss #181 five-motions-and-oppositions-sjc #3,   Meuse #7,   Recusing Judge #11, Meuse #15, Linnehan & Brown #19, Linnehan & Brown #23, Robyn Sylvia, Aff. #27, Meuse #31, Linnehan & Brown #35, Smith/Pocahontas #39, Linnehan & Brown #43, Linnehan Related #47, Smith/Pocahontas #51, Smith/Pocahontas #55, Smith/Pocahontas #59, Smith/Pocahontas #63, King HarrySmith #67, Meuse Kidnapping #71, Smith/Judges/A-G #75, LaidbackPocahontas #79, Fraud-StupidButFamous #83, 1st Amendment/Bar #86, Proposed Findings/Bar #90, Answer to Petition Discipline #91, Motion for Attorney Fees #95, Court Commits Crimes #99, Opposition to Attorney Fees #103 Appeal Judicial Immunity #107 Barb v. BBO et al (State) #111 Complaint - Sec 1983 #115 TOC-Proposed Findings #118 Opposition to Motion Strike #122 Barb v. BBO -- immunity #126 Meuse- re- Bivens Claims #130 LaFortune-Opp to Preclude #134 Memorial Butch Bailey  #138 o-city-recons-denial-dismiss #142 Smith surreply-Boston-facts #146 Smithsupp-m-partial-recon-cc #150 Barb-appeal-recommend-BB #154a announcement-of-disbarment #154 opp-recommendation-disbarment #158 m-dismis-by-bbo in Barb v BBO --------------------------------------------------- #162 m-recuse-SJC Justice-spina #166 claims-USDC-Local Rule-83.6(2)(D) #170 m-decl-practice-of-law-full-panel-sjc #174 reply-unauthorized-practice-laws-jc #178 motion-dismiss-disbarment-violation #182 app-for-further-app-review-Rule27-1 #4,  Meuse #8,  Meuse #12, Linnehan & Brown #16, Meuse #20, Linnehan & Brown #24, Sylvia c. Sylvia #28, Deleted #32, Linnehan & Brown #36, Smith/Pocahontas #40, Smith.Pocahontas #44, Linnehan Related #48, Smith/Pocahontas #52, Smith/Pocahontas #56, Judge Contempt #60, King HarrySmith  #64, Linnehan Related #68, GAL Fees #72, Brown & Linnehan #76, Fraud-LaidbackLawyer #80, 1st Amendment/Bar #84, Sano case/Bar #87, Senior citizen,Gordon #90, Count 1: Answer Interwoven #92 Immunity-DMA-Elderly #96, Jarasitis: Judas to Justice #100, Motion for Jury Trial #104 Judicial Accountability Art. #108 Preliminary Injunction #112 Smith'sOpposition to Det. #115a-Proposed Findings-Divorce #119 Barb v. BBO--Prop Findings #123 Meuse-Opp-to-STF-Dism. #127 Meuse- Fake FBI Docs #131 LaFortune-Mot-to-Dismiss #135 Smith's dipiano-mot-dism  #139 mal-pros-garden-variety #143 Smith's o-recon-sj-qual-iy #147 Reply-to-offs-o-partl-recon #151 barb-ussct-petition-writ-cert ---------------------------------------------- #155 petition-for-rehearing-spina #159 app-brief-and-letter-to-clerk #159a app-brief-surprises #163 m-jury trial for contempt #167 combined-correct-docket-order-toc #171 appeal-judgment-of-contempt-sjc #175 nonlawyer-representing-parties #179 reply-apps-disbarm't-contempt #183 -scotus-petition-for-writ-certiorari #1, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #3, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #5, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #7, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #9, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #11, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #13, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #15, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #17, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #19, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #21, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #23, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #25, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #27, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #29, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #31, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #33, Drano  (Not available in 640 pixels) #2, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #4, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #6, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #8, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #10, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #12, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #14, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #16, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #18, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #20, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #22, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #24, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #26, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #28 #30, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #32, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor) #34, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)   Barbara C. Johnson, Attorney at Law 6 Appletree Lane, Andover, Massachusetts 01810-4102 Phone 978-474-0833

 

Welcome, gubernatorial macmil...! [Sign out, My Account] Help?

 

My Home

 

Communities

 

Members

 

Topics

 

Invite

My Account

• To get the full MyBlogLog experience, complete these steps and achieve profile zen.

Profile Services Bio Widgets Email Address Hide/Block Lists Data Collection Delete Account

Hiya gubernatorial macmillan! It looks like you use the common screen name presidential, presidential2009 in other services. Would you like us to check the rest of the services for you?

Searching for your Services

ActiveRain		http://activerain.com/
Bebo		http://bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=
Blogger		http://www.blogger.com/profile/
Brightkite		http://brightkite.com/people/
del.icio.us		http://del.icio.us/
Digg		http://digg.com/users/
Disqus		http://www.disqus.com/people/
DOPPLR		http://www.dopplr.com/traveller/
eBay		eBay User ID:
Evite		alias:
Facebook		http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=	(remove facebook)
Flickr		screen name or id:	Flickr URL: http://www.flickr.com/photos/84682221@N00/
FriendFeed		http://friendfeed.com/
Friendster		http://	.blogs.friendster.com/
Google Calendar		email:
Google Reader		http://www.google.com/reader/shared/
IntenseDebate		http://www.intensedebate.com/people/
Jaiku		http://	.jaiku.com/
Jumpcut		http://www.jumpcut.com/
Kiva		http://www.kiva.org/lender/
Last.fm		http://www.last.fm/user/
LinkedIn		http://www.linkedin.com/in/
LiveJournal		username:
Multiply		http://	.multiply.com/
MyBlogLog Actions			Enabled Disabled
Blog Comments			Enabled Disabled
MySpace		http://www.myspace.com/
Netflix		http://rss.netflix.com/QueueRSS?id=	(Get your Netflix ID)
OpenID		url:
Plaxo		email:
reddit		http://reddit.com/user/
Second Life		name:
Seesmic		http://seesmic.com/
Shelfari		http://www.shelfari.com/
SlideShare		http://slideshare.net/
StumbleUpon		http://	.stumbleupon.com
Technorati		http://www.technorati.com/people/technorati/
The DJ List		http://www.thedjlist.com/djs/
30 Boxes		url:
ThisNext		http://www.thisnext.com/by/	/
Trulia		http://www.trulia.com/voices/profile/
Tumblr		http://	.tumblr.com
Twitter		http://twitter.com/
TypeKey		http://profile.typekey.com/	/
Upcoming		http://upcoming.yahoo.com/user/
Wakoopa		http://wakoopa.com/
Wink		http://wink.com/p/
Yahoo! Answers		http://answers.yahoo.com/my/profile?show=	(Remove Yahoo! Answers)
Yahoo! Updates			Enabled Disabled   (Manage)
Yelp		http://www.yelp.com/user_details?userid=
YouTube		http://youtube.com/user/
Zillow		http://www.zillow.com/profile/
Zorpia		http://www.zorpia.com/

Account information you share on this page will be used to retrieve your publicly-available updates from those sites for re-distribution across MyBlogLog.com and Yahoo!. Public updates are also available to third parties via an RSS feed of your profile as well as the MyBlogLog API. To prevent information from any particular online service(s) from being displayed, simply remove your screen name(s). (Learn more)

You

Explore

Create

Help

Manage Contacts | My Account | Sign out

Communities | Members | Topics | Friender

Developer API | Suggestions

Guidelines | Forum | Help Pages

MyBlogLog Blog |  MyBlogLog RSS Feed  | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Report Abuse

Copyright © 2005-2009 MyBlogLog. All rights reserved. Copyright/IP Policy