new-logo25Opinion by Doug Kinan – October 2, 2016

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“In one of the most sensational decisions in Massachusetts court history these three judges have declared that it is perfectly okay for a person to file a motion in court as a litigant’s lawyer when she was not the litigant’s lawyer at all.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In my five decades of advocating, developing and implementing equal opportunity employment programs, one in which I fought at the risk of losing my own job, for the right of black employees to be gainfully employed in non-traditional positions other than sky caps, cleaners and polishers, I never imagined that some blacks would so totally turn their backs on the very same laws that helped them advance.

lionIn fact, I did lose my job at the DOD, Defense Contract Management Agency – East, (DCMAE) because I was required to engage in frame-ups, promotion fixing, signing fraudulent promotional certifications and discriminate and retaliate against black employees to cheat many of them out of merit-based promotions.

Time marches on. According to public pleadings, a Judge in Massachusetts Superior Court by the name of Angel Kelley Brown, a Judge in Massachusetts Superior Court by the name of Garry Inge and a Justice on the Supreme Judicial by the name of Geraldine Hines all have consciously defied the same United States Constitution they took an oath to uphold. And all three judges have knowingly and officially defied the rulings of the United States Supreme Court as well. And all three judges are African-American.

It’s no mystery to any jurist in America that the United States Supreme Court is named “Supreme” for a reason.

Their decision is a far cry from the good days of the civil rights movement when help came from Federal institutions, black politicians and black civil rights leaders quoted extensively from the Constitution to seek relief from white police officers and white judges who defied the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court with impunity.

In one of the most sensational decisions in Massachusetts court history these three judges have declared that it is perfectly okay for a person to file a motion in court as a litigant’s lawyer when she was not the litigant’s lawyer at all. The litigant did not even know that document was being filed. By doing this the three judges have essentially made new law.

While I have witnessed numerous unethical “legal manipulations,” and bad decisions in all the years I spent as a court clerk taking in pleadings for five judges from tens of thousands of attorneys and pro se litigants, never once did I ever come across a pleading filed by a person who claimed to be the Plaintiff’s attorney but was not, and a judge who would not only ignore that fact but consciously allow the case to proceed and issue a decision that was out of any and all court rules and bounds.

In other words, I have never seen a pleading filed by someone posing as the Plaintiff’s lawyer in the case, where the Plaintiff had no idea that the pleading had been filed, and a judge who decided that the overall deception was proper and in accordance with court rules. This is a “clean hands” violation and fraud on a scale that is a whole dimension different from the usual wheezes that some unethical attorneys try to slip past the court.

Something is very wrong with the Massachusetts court system.

It is staggering to me that three judges consciously and willfully refused to recognize and dismiss this pleading as a blatant fraud on the court and fail to recognize Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:07: Rules of Professional Conduct and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:09: Code of Judicial Conduct by making a proper referral to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers pursuant to 18 USC 4.

Prior to witnessing this fraudulent pleading and biased decision, I, as well as every lawyer and judge in America, under these same circumstances, would have said the judicial conduct in this matter is impossible and “would never happen here.”

As the pro se litigant in this case wrote to the Massachusetts SJC:
“Alabama Chief Justice Moore consciously DEFIED a clear ruling of the United States Supreme Court in exactly the same fashion as Judge Angel Kelley Brown, Judge Garry Inge and Justice Geraldine Hines, who consciously and willfully DEFIED a clear ruling of the United States Supreme Court with full knowledge and intent.

This Court must also strongly, immediately and publicly punish open willful DEFIANCE of the binding rulings of the United States Supreme Court exactly as has been done by the State of Alabama and Plaintiff-Appellant’s petition, according to the United States Supreme Court, must immediately be GRANTED.”

Justice Hines’ decision is now on appeal to the full bench of the Massachusetts Supreme Court (SJC-12181).

Contextually, on September 30, 2016, in a unanimous vote of the nine-member Alabama Court of the Judiciary, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was suspended from the bench for the remainder of his term.

Discrimination, retaliation and/or covering up corrupt or criminal government activity is wrong, no matter who is doing it. At least, that’s what the law says.

Judges take an oath to uphold and apply the law, not make new law.

In its proper perspective and context, a white Chief Justice was suspended in the “Heart of Dixie”, the home State of Rosa Parks, the home State of the 16th Baptist Church bombing, the home State of Governor George Wallace and the home State of the “strongest and most violent chapter of the Ku Klux Klan” for defying the Supreme Court and for violating the Canons of Judicial Ethics while the full bench in Massachusetts ponders the making of new law by three black judges. It’s a paradox.

Unleashing any judge on the public, white or black, who has no respect for the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the United States Supreme Court is just bad business. Period.

Note: The author is a retired sworn and commissioned officer of the Massachusetts Trial Court, a Board of Director Member of the Boston State Hospital Project, an Equal Opportunity and Community Advocate and Expert Government Witness on Retaliation

Save

Advertisements