ALIANA BRODMANN E. von RICHTHOFEN 7 HAMPDEN STREET WELLESLEY, MA Phone: Verified Complaint. Parties

Transcription

1 ALIANA BRODMANN E. von RICHTHOFEN 7 HAMPDEN STREET WELLESLEY, MA Phone: Aliana Brodmann E. von Richthofen Verified Complaint Parties. 2. Susan Mellen, Senior Clerk, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts John Adams Courthouse, One Pemberton Square Rm 1-400, Boston, MA 02108; 3. Jane Lewis, Assistant Clerk, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts John Adams Courthouse, One Pemberton Square Rm 1-400, Boston, MA 02108; 4. David Labadini, Clerk, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts John Adams Courthouse, One Pemberton Square Rm 1-400, Boston, MA 02108; 5. Former Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts as Overseer of the SJC Clerk s Office John Adams Courthouse, One Pemberton Square Rm 1-400, Boston, MA 02108; 6. Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, successor to Ms. Margaret H. Marshall as Overseer of the SJC Clerk s Office John Adams Courthouse, One Pemberton Square Rm 1-400, Boston, MA 02108; Statement of Facts 1. On March 16, 2010 and subsequently March 18, 2010 I visited the Supreme Judicial Court Clerk s Office, after having telephoned in advance to advise that I wanted to review the file on my Application for Further Appellant Review (FAR) that had been denied. The reason for my review were significant irregularities and omissions in the SJC s electronic docket of the case file, as well as the marked unresponsiveness by the Justices to significant Motions and other critical submissions I had filed in support of Further Appellate Review. 1

2 Both on March 16, 2010 as well as March 18, 2010, the second time confirmed by the Senior Clerk Susan Mellen, the entire case file was declared to be inexplicably missing. The Assistant Clerk, Ms. Jane Lewis, who was present on March 16, 2010, suggested that Ms. Susan Mellen, the Senior Clerk, would call me when the file was located. 2. Since the Sr. Clerk never called me, I returned to the SJC Clerk s Office on March 18, 2010 with another person and asked the Clerk, David Labadini, who was present, for my file. When he stated that he couldn t find it and I asked him, where it could possibly be, he became angry and told me to leave, calling security to intimidate me into refraining from asking further questions about my unobtainable file. 3. Senior Clerk, Mellen, was again not present that day initially and only located by the security guard called by Mr. Labadini, who was very sympathetic and went looking for her. 4. Ms. Mellen s demeanor was markedly hostile and unprofessional, instead of helpful and apologetic as would be expected in any office when a file cannot be located. She told me that she did not know where the case file is, stating simply that it was inexplicably missing. We agreed that she would continue searching for it and contact me upon locating the case file. She never called back or contacted me in writing. 5. Subsequently I sent a letter to the SJC Security Office requesting information for the Reason security had been called to the Clerk s Office on March 18, I received a letter in response by the Chief of Security, stating that there was no record of any such call. 6. On June 29, 2010 I sent a follow-up Letter to the Clerk s Office by certified mail inquiring of the progress in the search for the missing file. This letter was not responded to. 2

3 According to Bruce Shaw, Director of Archives and Records Preservation at the SJC, whom I contacted regarding this matter, the only other time one single case file went missing was in 2005 when the SJC moved from its previous location to its present one. That file, he explained, was later found. He has no knowledge of any other files ever gone missing from the Supreme Judicial Court. This information left me all the more perplexed as to why my case file would be declared inexplicably missing. 7. On August 19, 2011 I finally sent a complaint to the Chief Justice Marshall as Overseer of the SJC Clerk s Office, to which Ms. Marshall s lawyer, Francis S. Moran Jr., responded on September 23, His response letter, while acknowledging that the file had gone missing, ignored the seriousness of the matter and was factually wrong. He stated that the Sr. Clerk attempted to reconstruct the file and that two documents remained missing. Copies of some documents he claimed to have been retrieved accompanied his letter. (Encl.1) 8. My review of the documents sent to me by Attorney Moran proved that not two but eight documents were missing, although some of them are recorded on the SJC s internet docket of the case. Importantly: some of the retrieved documents Attorney Moran sent missed significant parts and had clearly been doctored. Actually, by sending me the retrieved documents, Attorney Moran provided me with additional evidence of the mishandling of my submissions to the Court. The evidence showed not only mere mishandling that could be construed as oversight or negligence, but indisputably biased destruction and/or doctoring of documents that provided crucial evidence in support of my Application for Further Appellate Review, indicating unequivocal favoritism towards the corporate defendants in my case. Just one example: a Motion marked Urgent, which had been hand-delivered to the Clerk s Office on October 28, 2009 was included in Attorney Moran s retrieved documents marked November 05, 2009 and missing crucial attachments! 3

4 The fact, that this important Motion, that was to reach the Justices in time for their decisive session that day, bears a date of 8 days later than the actual delivery, proves that the miss-dating didn t happen out of negligence but deliberately. This improper date intends to show, should there ever be an investigation, that this document was delivered too late to be considered by the Justices at that particular session and therefore could not have been considered in their decision. My copy of this Motion bears the correct date as stamped by the Clerk s Office the day I hand-delivered the original: October 28, The verified copies in my possession (stamped by the Court) of the documents declared missing by the SJC Clerk s Office plus the partial and doctored documents provided to me by Attorney Moran provide indisputable proof of substantial and persistent favoritism towards the corporate Defendants by the SJC Clerk s Office instead of impartiality. 10. The eight allegedly missing documents are: 1. Facsimile March , 10:27 AM : Request for reasonable time to rebut no resp. despite follow-up call to Clerk s Office; 2. Facsimile +Mail April : Requesting Statement of Reasons for Denial no resp; 3. Hand-deliv. April : Re: Unresponsiveness to Letter of April and followup call requesting Statement of Reasons - no resp. 4. Mail: April : Re: Unresponsiveness to calls and Letters April 3. and April no resp. 5. Certif. Mail July : Petition for Special Review of Legal Standard / Was the proper Legal Standard Applied? no resp. 6. Certif. Mail September and calls Re: When to expect Decision on Petition for Special Review? filed July 14, 2009 no resp. 7. Facsimile October , 11:30 AM: URGENT Motion to Strike no resp. 8. Notice of Docket Entry Nov : Re: Inarticulate Notice / generic docket entry. 4

5 Of these eight allegedly missing submissions, seven included Requests for clarification, enlargement of time, a Motion marked URGENT, and an important public interest Petition by me on an often misunderstood legal question. All of these submissions required responses from the Court. None had been responded to. The eighth missing document is a revealing Notice/docket entry by Ms. Mellen (originating in the SJC Clerk s Office!), illogically explaining the mishandling of the Petition for Special Review of Legal Standard submitted by me July Eight of seventeen submissions in total represent almost 50% of the total submissions in my case as missing and not responded to by the Court, all of them significant and essential documents for the Court s Decision on the Application For Further Appellate Review and filed by me, with one of the submissions being of indisputable public importance, as it asks a fundamental and often misunderstood legal question, as proven in this very case, which therefore merits a decision by this Court: Was the proper legal standard applied to this Employment Retaliation Case by the Appeals Court? 11. The only logical assumption that can be made, given the evidence, is that my Application for FAR was so grossly mishandled by the Clerk s Office, that when a Review became imminent, Ms. Mellen preferred to declare the entire file inexplicably missing, rather than expose the evidence: a file devoid of the significant submissions that supported the Application for Further Appellate Review, as well as other submissions that addressed repeated violations of Court Rules of Procedure by the corporate defendants, such as past deadline filings and non-service of their submissions to the other party (me) as required. 12. The actions by Ms. Mellen and the SJC Clerk s Office not only violated my civil rights to due process of law, but prevented an important public interest decision to be made on the fundamental and often misunderstood legal question stated in the Petition for Special Review of Legal Standard/Was the proper Legal Standard Applied in this Retaliation Case? one of the two documents Attorney Moran verified 5

6 in his letter as missing. The subsequent declaration of the entire file as inexplicably missing upon impending review and the clerks attempts at intimidating me by calling security to prohibit me from insisting upon reviewing the file in question, suggest the high probability that the state of affairs in this case is not an isolated incident of favoritism at the SJC and therefore requires a broad investigation into the Clerk s Office s activities for substantial reasons affecting the public interest and in the interest of justice. 13. My letter November 7, 2010 letter to Chief Justice M. H. Marshall summarizing these points in response to Attorney Moran s letter was not answered.( Encl. 2) Neither was my reminder to her of On December 23, 2010 I related my complaint and Findings to Ms. Marshall s successor, Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland. This letter, as well as two follow up letters were not answered by him or by anyone else at the SJC. (Encl. 3) 15. Significantly: The Appeals Court had improperly filed this Employment Retaliation Case under the sub nature: Employment Discrimination and decided it accordingly citing Rule 1: 28. Rule 1:28 indicating a ruling in line with the legal standard of the charges filed. 16. Upon my request to the Appeals Court to correct the filing of the Appeal, it was correctly entered under the correct sub nature: Employment Retaliation, but the erroneous argument and decision, given while it had been filed under Discrimination and decided under Rule 1: 28, remained standing and is in conflict with the stated Rule 1:28 (Appeals Court Docket). 17. Therefore a subsequent ruling to correct these mistakes on the Application for FAR or at least upon the following Petition for Special Review of the proper legal standard for Employment Retaliation/ was the proper legal standard for an employment 6

7 retaliation case applied? ( Encl. 4) by the SJC is important for the benefit of the public and in the interest of justice. 18. The status of substantial missing and doctored submissions in my Application for Further Appellate Review remains, along with the SJC s refusal to explain: 1. when the original case file went missing, 2. who last had it, 3. whether the Justices actually ever saw my Application for FAR and the subsequent Petition, 4. and whether the denials signed by the Senior Clerk were ever ordered by the Justices. This indicates a high probability that the denials issued had not been ordered by the Justices, particularly in light of the fact that a determinate and binding ruling by the highest Court was clearly merited here, as would have been appropriately recognized by the Justices of the SJC, had they seen the these documents as submitted in their entirety and un- obscured. The denials, as issued, indicate that the Justices never could have seen and thus denied Further Appellate Review, since it leaves my retaliation case as the only one, in which discrimination must also be proven in addition to retaliation, as was improperly cited by the Appeals Court and contrary to the statute. If not corrected, the conundrum that was to be avoided when the two offenses, Employment Discrimination and Employment Retaliation, were separated leaves the door wide open to mischief and capricious rulings, resulting in egregious civil rights violations, as in my case, and would call for changes to the existing statute of the Law governing these two different offenses. 7

8 Legal Grounds for Pursuing Charges 1. Legal Grounds for pursuing charges against former Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall as Overseer of the Clerk s Office of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts include, but are not limited to: Civil Rights Violations under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241: Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution of the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same) ; Civil Rights Violations under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242: Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. Acts under color of any law include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under color of any law, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes, ordinances, or customs. 8

9 My written communication with Chief Justice Marshall began August and led to confirmation of Ms. Marshall s Culpability for misdeeds perpetrated in the SJC Clerk s Office by the Senior Clerk Susan Mellen. The misdeeds committed by Ms. Marshall as Overseer of the SJC s Clerk s Office include, but are not limited to: 1. Breach of supervisory duties; 2. Unresponsiveness to Complaints; 3. Tolerance of misdeeds perpetrated by the Clerk s Office of the SJC and particularly Senior Clerk Susan Mellen; 4. Refusal to investigate the misdeeds committed by Senior Clerk Susan Mellen; 5. Accessory to misdeeds perpetrated by Senior Clerk Susan Mellen: including, but not limited to Deliberate Destruction of Public Records; Interference with Due Process; Civil Rights Violations; Intimidation and Refusal to produce Public Records in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. Importantly: these misdeeds, as re-stated in my follow up complaint and Letter of November 7, 2010 to Chief Justice M. H. Marshall as Overseer of the SJC Clerk s Office, have remained uncontested by her, which together with the verified documentation in my possession establish the Evidence for pursuing charges. On November I followed up with a letter to Ms. Marshall substantiating the misdeeds committed in the Clerk s Office of the SJC. This letter, delivered to her in response to her lawyer s letter of September 23, 2010 relating to my complaint of August 19, 2010 has been left unanswered to date. On December 8, 2010 I sent a Reminder. This Reminder also remained unanswered. This unresponsiveness to the two Letters indicates that Ms. Marshall did not investigate my complaints against the Clerk s Office of the SJC as required, particularly given the seriousness of the complaints. It further suggests that Ms. Marshall not only knows and 9

10 tolerates the misdeeds committed by the Senior Clerk, but that she attempts to help cover them up and evade accountability by early retirement. Importantly: Ms. Marshall s actions and impenitence suggest a pattern of misdeeds routinely committed at the SJC of Massachusetts that significantly impact the civil rights of all US citizens, emphasizing the pursuit of these charges to be a significant matter of public interest. 10

11 2. Legal Grounds for pursuing Charges against Ms. Susan Mellen, Senior Clerk/ Clerk s Office of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts The legal grounds for pursuing Charges against Ms. Susan Mellen follow direct communication with Chief Justice Marshall, which began August and led to confirmation of Ms. Mellen s culpability in the misdeeds perpetrated by her and the SJC Clerk s Office. The violations committed by Ms. Mellen include, but are not limited to: Civil Rights Violations under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241: Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution of the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same) ; Civil Rights Violations under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242: Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. Acts under color of any law include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under color of any law, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such 11

12 as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes, ordinances, or customs. Ms. Mellen s misdeeds include, but are not limited to: 1. Destruction of Public Records; 2. Interference with Due Process; 3. Intimidation and Refusal to produce Public Records in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. In addition, Ms. Mellen appears to have: 1. Suppressed significant Documents in their entirety or parts thereof intended for the SJC Justices; 2. Failed to docket Documents; 3. Falsified dates on Documents submitted; 4. Failed to communicate verbally or in writing as and where required; 5. Favored certain parties and allowed their repeated violations of procedural Rules and Regulations, such as unannounced late filings, non-service of copies of their Submissions to other parties when and where required, etc.; 6. Refused access to Public Records as required by the Freedom of Information Act; 7. Issued and docketed improper Orders and Notices 8. Intimidated certain parties to refrain from requesting access to public Records 9. Destroyed Public Records; 10. Declared Public Records inexplicably missing to evade accountability for her misdeeds These misdeeds, as stated in my complaint of August 19, 2010 and follow-up Letter of November 7, 2010 to Chief Justice M. H. Marshall as Overseer of the SJC s Clerk s Office have remained uncontested by her, which together with the verified documents in my possession establish the Evidence for pursuing charges against Ms. Mellen. 12

13 Importantly: Ms. Mellen s actions and impenitence suggest a pattern of misdeeds routinely committed at the SJC of Massachusetts that significantly impact the civil rights of all US citizens, emphasizing the pursuit of these Charges to be a significant matter of public interest. 13

14 3. Legal Grounds for Pursuing Charges against Chief Justice Marshall s successor, Chief Justice Roderick Ireland, as Overseer of the SJC Clerk s Office The violations committed by Chief Justice Roderick Ireland include, but are not limited to Civil Rights Violations under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241: Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution of the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same) ; Civil Rights Violations under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242: Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges,or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. Acts under color of any law include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under color of any law, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes, ordinances, or customs. Chief Justice Ireland s misdeeds include, but are not limited to: 1. Breach of supervisory duties; 14

15 2. Unresponsiveness to Complaints about misdeeds perpetrated at the SJC s Clerk s Office; 3. Tolerance of misdeeds perpetrated by the SJC Clerk s Office and particularly Senior Clerk Susan Mellen; 4. Refusal to investigate the misdeeds committed by Senior Clerk Susan Mellen; 5. Accessory to misdeeds perpetrated by Senior Clerk Susan Mellen: including, but not limited to Deliberate Destruction of Public Records; Interference with Due Process; Civil Rights Violations; Intimidation and Refusal to produce Public Records in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. Importantly: Chief Justice Ireland s actions suggest a pattern of misdeeds routinely committed at the SJC of Massachusetts that significantly impact the civil rights of all US citizens, emphasizing the pursuit of these Charges to be a significant matter of public interest. 15

16 4. Legal Grounds for pursuing Charges against Ms. Jane Lewis, Assistant Clerk/ Clerk s Office of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts The violations committed by Ms. Lewis include but are not limited to Civil Rights Violations under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241: Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution of the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same) ; Civil Rights Violations under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242: Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. Acts under color of any law include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under color of any law, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes, ordinances, or customs. Ms. Lewis misdeeds include, but are not limited to: 1. Civil Rights Violations; 2. Destruction of Public Records; 16

17 3. Interference with Due Process. Importantly: Ms. Lewis actions suggest a pattern of misdeeds routinely committed at the SJC of Massachusetts that significantly impacts the civil rights of all US citizens, emphasizing the pursuit of these Charges to be a significant matter of public interest. 17

18 5. Legal Grounds for pursuing Charges against Mr. David Labadini, Clerk/ Clerk s Office of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Violations committed by Mr. Labadini include, but are not limited to: Civil Rights Violations under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241: Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution of the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same) ; Civil Rights Violations under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242: Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. Acts under color of any law include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under color of any law, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes, ordinances, or customs. Mr. Labadini s misdeeds include, but are not limited to: 1. Civil Rights Violations; 2. Interference with Due Process; 18

19 3. Intimidation and Refusal to produce Public Records in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. Importantly: Mr. Labadini s actions suggest a pattern of misdeeds routinely committed at the SJC of Massachusetts that significantly impact the civil rights of all US citizens, emphasizing these Charges to be a significant matter of public interest. Conclusion All facts set forth in this Statement of Facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and all additional documents substantiating those facts are readily available for review upon request. Respectfully submitted, Aliana Brodmann E. von Richthofen 19