MA SJC Upholds Cover-Up of Due Process Violations by Family Court Judge

SJC Upholds Cover-Up of Due Process Violations by Family Court Judge
By John Flaherty
President of Liberty Bell Union

On November 12, 2000, MassNews reported that the Appeals court had
reversed a criminal contempt judgment against Bill Leisk, for which he had
served 30 days in jail, but only on the ground that Leisk had not
effectively waived his right to an attorney without being advised that an
attorney was available. It did not address the due process violations of
Judge Kopelman of the Norfolk Family Court but remanded the case back to
Family Court for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court has approved the
Appeals Court decision.

Bill Leisk immediately appealed the decision to the Supreme Judicial
Court because the Appeals Court neither wrote a published decision nor one
that clearly showed the true errors of the lower court. The unpublished
decision was a clear cover-up of the horrendous constitutional due process
violations suffered by Leisk in a kangaroo criminal procedure administered
by Judge David H. Kopelman of the Norfolk Family Court.

Such due process violations occur repeatedly in Mass. Family Courts
generally against fathers because of a clear anti-father agenda in the
Family Courts well, known to any impartial observer. The decision was
written by Appeals Court Justice Fernende R.V. Duffly who was a Family Court
judge before her appointment to the Appeals Court in 2000. She sought
futilely during Leisk's "Oral Argument" to find another excuse to reverse
the ill-contrived contempt judgment against him rather than expose the
horrendous violations of a one-time fellow Family Court Judge. Devising an
unpublished appeal that essentially blamed 'pro se' defendant Leisk for not
adequately waiving his right to an attorney was her corrupt way out.

Bill Leisk was quite able to recognize his rights and Judge Kopelman's
gross denial of fundamental due process under his kangaroo criminal contempt
proceedings that immediately landed Leisk in jail for 30 days. Leisk's legal
competency is evident in his ability to write an appeal and reverse
Kopelman's contempt judgment- in spite of Justices who would prefer to have
his pleadings suppressed.

a.. The Trial Court's 'Errors' that were ignored by the Appeals Court -and
now by the SJC- were clearly briefed to both higher courts with proof. They
we

Family Court Judge Kopelman's ignoring due process requirements,
regardless whether or not a defense attorney is present, we
Stating within the first couple of minutes of the hearing that this was a
criminal contempt hearing where Leisk could be incarcerated (a hearing that
took all of 5 or 10 minutes) yet offered Leisk no counsel nor a waiver of
counsel.
Refusing Leisk's request for a jury trial or any trial.
Refusing to swear anyone in.
Refusing to allow Leisk to cross-examine the witness, call witness (his
daughter), but took unsworn testimony of ex wife's lawyer.
Virtually prosecuting the case himself, asking all the questions and
ignoring Leisk's objections to the hearsay evidence invoked by the trial
judge's own questions!
Ignoring testimony of Leisk's exwife's suppressed statement that she
initially agreed with the Hawaii trip.
Ignoring the previous NO Contempt finding of J. Harms on the same exact
issue some three weeks previously when Harms said, "He can buy 12 tickets.
you (the mother) are to tell your daughter not to go"(the mother had full
legal custody).
Ignoring the fact that Leisk took no further part in his daughter's trip
beyond initially buying the tickets as a promised birthday gift, and
finally.
Finding Leisk in contempt stating in his judgment, "purchasing the
aforesaid round trip tickets to Hawaii for his daughter, the defendant
intentionally and willfully violated a clear, unambiguous order of this
Court and is therefore Guilty of contempt" in spite of the fact that the
parent's written agreement states that its terms can be altered under mutual
agreement - it was (initially!!!); and the agreement says nothing about
restricting buying or gifting of tickets, bicycles, cash, etc.
SJC neglects its constitutional duty

The SJC is Massachusetts last judicial resort to clarify the
constitutional due process rights in our state's trial courts through its
published case law to which lower court judges must adhere and thereby
assure the public of constitutional justice. Unfortunately the SJC's
dismissal of Leisk's appeal is a clear withdrawal from its constitutional
obligations of judicial clarification to Family Court judges. It has shown
that it will maintain an obvious agenda in our Family Court system of
disenfranchising fathers from their children and their constitutional rights
of due process and equal protection.

Unfortunately, fathers are not part of the correct "PC group" for the
attention of the SJC. Perhaps the SJC was simply too preoccupied with their
legislative determinations.


--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

Dusty wrote:
SJC Upholds Cover-Up of Due Process Violations by Family Court Judge
By John Flaherty
President of Liberty Bell Union


Is any men's organization compiling a national database of sexist men
hating bigot judges?

This scumbag has to go.

Bob




On November 12, 2000, MassNews reported that the Appeals court had
reversed a criminal contempt judgment against Bill Leisk, for which he had
served 30 days in jail, but only on the ground that Leisk had not
effectively waived his right to an attorney without being advised that an
attorney was available. It did not address the due process violations of
Judge Kopelman of the Norfolk Family Court but remanded the case back to
Family Court for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court has approved the
Appeals Court decision.

Bill Leisk immediately appealed the decision to the Supreme Judicial
Court because the Appeals Court neither wrote a published decision nor one
that clearly showed the true errors of the lower court. The unpublished
decision was a clear cover-up of the horrendous constitutional due process
violations suffered by Leisk in a kangaroo criminal procedure administered
by Judge David H. Kopelman of the Norfolk Family Court.

Such due process violations occur repeatedly in Mass. Family Courts
generally against fathers because of a clear anti-father agenda in the
Family Courts well, known to any impartial observer. The decision was
written by Appeals Court Justice Fernende R.V. Duffly who was a Family Court
judge before her appointment to the Appeals Court in 2000. She sought
futilely during Leisk's "Oral Argument" to find another excuse to reverse
the ill-contrived contempt judgment against him rather than expose the
horrendous violations of a one-time fellow Family Court Judge. Devising an
unpublished appeal that essentially blamed 'pro se' defendant Leisk for not
adequately waiving his right to an attorney was her corrupt way out.

Bill Leisk was quite able to recognize his rights and Judge Kopelman's
gross denial of fundamental due process under his kangaroo criminal contempt
proceedings that immediately landed Leisk in jail for 30 days. Leisk's legal
competency is evident in his ability to write an appeal and reverse
Kopelman's contempt judgment- in spite of Justices who would prefer to have
his pleadings suppressed.

a.. The Trial Court's 'Errors' that were ignored by the Appeals Court -and
now by the SJC- were clearly briefed to both higher courts with proof. They
we

Family Court Judge Kopelman's ignoring due process requirements,
regardless whether or not a defense attorney is present, we
Stating within the first couple of minutes of the hearing that this was a
criminal contempt hearing where Leisk could be incarcerated (a hearing that
took all of 5 or 10 minutes) yet offered Leisk no counsel nor a waiver of
counsel.
Refusing Leisk's request for a jury trial or any trial.
Refusing to swear anyone in.
Refusing to allow Leisk to cross-examine the witness, call witness (his
daughter), but took unsworn testimony of ex wife's lawyer.
Virtually prosecuting the case himself, asking all the questions and
ignoring Leisk's objections to the hearsay evidence invoked by the trial
judge's own questions!
Ignoring testimony of Leisk's exwife's suppressed statement that she
initially agreed with the Hawaii trip.
Ignoring the previous NO Contempt finding of J. Harms on the same exact
issue some three weeks previously when Harms said, "He can buy 12 tickets.
you (the mother) are to tell your daughter not to go"(the mother had full
legal custody).
Ignoring the fact that Leisk took no further part in his daughter's trip
beyond initially buying the tickets as a promised birthday gift, and
finally.
Finding Leisk in contempt stating in his judgment, "purchasing the
aforesaid round trip tickets to Hawaii for his daughter, the defendant
intentionally and willfully violated a clear, unambiguous order of this
Court and is therefore Guilty of contempt" in spite of the fact that the
parent's written agreement states that its terms can be altered under mutual
agreement - it was (initially!!!); and the agreement says nothing about
restricting buying or gifting of tickets, bicycles, cash, etc.
SJC neglects its constitutional duty

The SJC is Massachusetts last judicial resort to clarify the
constitutional due process rights in our state's trial courts through its
published case law to which lower court judges must adhere and thereby
assure the public of constitutional justice. Unfortunately the SJC's
dismissal of Leisk's appeal is a clear withdrawal from its constitutional
obligations of judicial clarification to Family Court judges. It has shown
that it will maintain an obvious agenda in our Family Court system of
disenfranchising fathers from their children and their constitutional rights
of due process and equal protection.

Unfortunately, fathers are not part of the correct "PC group" for the
attention of the SJC. Perhaps the SJC was simply too preoccupied with their
legislative determinations.






--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Dusty wrote:
SJC Upholds Cover-Up of Due Process Violations by Family Court Judge
By John Flaherty
President of Liberty Bell Union


Is any men's organization compiling a national database of sexist men
hating bigot judges?

This scumbag has to go.

Bob




On November 12, 2000, MassNews reported that the Appeals court had
reversed a criminal contempt judgment against Bill Leisk, for which he had
served 30 days in jail, but only on the ground that Leisk had not
effectively waived his right to an attorney without being advised that an
attorney was available. It did not address the due process violations of
Judge Kopelman of the Norfolk Family Court but remanded the case back to
Family Court for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court has approved the
Appeals Court decision.

Bill Leisk immediately appealed the decision to the Supreme Judicial
Court because the Appeals Court neither wrote a published decision nor one
that clearly showed the true errors of the lower court. The unpublished
decision was a clear cover-up of the horrendous constitutional due process
violations suffered by Leisk in a kangaroo criminal procedure administered
by Judge David H. Kopelman of the Norfolk Family Court.

Such due process violations occur repeatedly in Mass. Family Courts
generally against fathers because of a clear anti-father agenda in the
Family Courts well, known to any impartial observer. The decision was
written by Appeals Court Justice Fernende R.V. Duffly who was a Family Court
judge before her appointment to the Appeals Court in 2000. She sought
futilely during Leisk's "Oral Argument" to find another excuse to reverse
the ill-contrived contempt judgment against him rather than expose the
horrendous violations of a one-time fellow Family Court Judge. Devising an
unpublished appeal that essentially blamed 'pro se' defendant Leisk for not
adequately waiving his right to an attorney was her corrupt way out.

Bill Leisk was quite able to recognize his rights and Judge Kopelman's
gross denial of fundamental due process under his kangaroo criminal contempt
proceedings that immediately landed Leisk in jail for 30 days. Leisk's legal
competency is evident in his ability to write an appeal and reverse
Kopelman's contempt judgment- in spite of Justices who would prefer to have
his pleadings suppressed.

a.. The Trial Court's 'Errors' that were ignored by the Appeals Court -and
now by the SJC- were clearly briefed to both higher courts with proof. They
we

Family Court Judge Kopelman's ignoring due process requirements,
regardless whether or not a defense attorney is present, we
Stating within the first couple of minutes of the hearing that this was a
criminal contempt hearing where Leisk could be incarcerated (a hearing that
took all of 5 or 10 minutes) yet offered Leisk no counsel nor a waiver of
counsel.
Refusing Leisk's request for a jury trial or any trial.
Refusing to swear anyone in.
Refusing to allow Leisk to cross-examine the witness, call witness (his
daughter), but took unsworn testimony of ex wife's lawyer.
Virtually prosecuting the case himself, asking all the questions and
ignoring Leisk's objections to the hearsay evidence invoked by the trial
judge's own questions!
Ignoring testimony of Leisk's exwife's suppressed statement that she
initially agreed with the Hawaii trip.
Ignoring the previous NO Contempt finding of J. Harms on the same exact
issue some three weeks previously when Harms said, "He can buy 12 tickets.
you (the mother) are to tell your daughter not to go"(the mother had full
legal custody).
Ignoring the fact that Leisk took no further part in his daughter's trip
beyond initially buying the tickets as a promised birthday gift, and
finally.
Finding Leisk in contempt stating in his judgment, "purchasing the
aforesaid round trip tickets to Hawaii for his daughter, the defendant
intentionally and willfully violated a clear, unambiguous order of this
Court and is therefore Guilty of contempt" in spite of the fact that the
parent's written agreement states that its terms can be altered under mutual
agreement - it was (initially!!!); and the agreement says nothing about
restricting buying or gifting of tickets, bicycles, cash, etc.
SJC neglects its constitutional duty

The SJC is Massachusetts last judicial resort to clarify the
constitutional due process rights in our state's trial courts through its
published case law to which lower court judges must adhere and thereby
assure the public of constitutional justice. Unfortunately the SJC's
dismissal of Leisk's appeal is a clear withdrawal from its constitutional
obligations of judicial clarification to Family Court judges. It has shown
that it will maintain an obvious agenda in our Family Court system of
disenfranchising fathers from their children and their constitutional rights
of due process and equal protection.

Unfortunately, fathers are not part of the correct "PC group" for the
attention of the SJC. Perhaps the SJC was simply too preoccupied with their
legislative determinations.






--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Looks like MA is deadbeat state of the month! Right Fido?

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:42:27 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

SJC Upholds Cover-Up of Due Process Violations by Family Court Judge
By John Flaherty
President of Liberty Bell Union

On November 12, 2000, MassNews reported that the Appeals court had
reversed a criminal contempt judgment against Bill Leisk, for which he had
served 30 days in jail, but only on the ground that Leisk had not
effectively waived his right to an attorney without being advised that an
attorney was available. It did not address the due process violations of
Judge Kopelman of the Norfolk Family Court but remanded the case back to
Family Court for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court has approved the
Appeals Court decision.

Bill Leisk immediately appealed the decision to the Supreme Judicial
Court because the Appeals Court neither wrote a published decision nor one
that clearly showed the true errors of the lower court. The unpublished
decision was a clear cover-up of the horrendous constitutional due process
violations suffered by Leisk in a kangaroo criminal procedure administered
by Judge David H. Kopelman of the Norfolk Family Court.

Such due process violations occur repeatedly in Mass. Family Courts
generally against fathers because of a clear anti-father agenda in the
Family Courts well, known to any impartial observer. The decision was
written by Appeals Court Justice Fernende R.V. Duffly who was a Family Court
judge before her appointment to the Appeals Court in 2000. She sought
futilely during Leisk's "Oral Argument" to find another excuse to reverse
the ill-contrived contempt judgment against him rather than expose the
horrendous violations of a one-time fellow Family Court Judge. Devising an
unpublished appeal that essentially blamed 'pro se' defendant Leisk for not
adequately waiving his right to an attorney was her corrupt way out.

Bill Leisk was quite able to recognize his rights and Judge Kopelman's
gross denial of fundamental due process under his kangaroo criminal contempt
proceedings that immediately landed Leisk in jail for 30 days. Leisk's legal
competency is evident in his ability to write an appeal and reverse
Kopelman's contempt judgment- in spite of Justices who would prefer to have
his pleadings suppressed.

a.. The Trial Court's 'Errors' that were ignored by the Appeals Court -and
now by the SJC- were clearly briefed to both higher courts with proof. They
we

Family Court Judge Kopelman's ignoring due process requirements,
regardless whether or not a defense attorney is present, we
Stating within the first couple of minutes of the hearing that this was a
criminal contempt hearing where Leisk could be incarcerated (a hearing that
took all of 5 or 10 minutes) yet offered Leisk no counsel nor a waiver of
counsel.
Refusing Leisk's request for a jury trial or any trial.
Refusing to swear anyone in.
Refusing to allow Leisk to cross-examine the witness, call witness (his
daughter), but took unsworn testimony of ex wife's lawyer.
Virtually prosecuting the case himself, asking all the questions and
ignoring Leisk's objections to the hearsay evidence invoked by the trial
judge's own questions!
Ignoring testimony of Leisk's exwife's suppressed statement that she
initially agreed with the Hawaii trip.
Ignoring the previous NO Contempt finding of J. Harms on the same exact
issue some three weeks previously when Harms said, "He can buy 12 tickets.
you (the mother) are to tell your daughter not to go"(the mother had full
legal custody).
Ignoring the fact that Leisk took no further part in his daughter's trip
beyond initially buying the tickets as a promised birthday gift, and
finally.
Finding Leisk in contempt stating in his judgment, "purchasing the
aforesaid round trip tickets to Hawaii for his daughter, the defendant
intentionally and willfully violated a clear, unambiguous order of this
Court and is therefore Guilty of contempt" in spite of the fact that the
parent's written agreement states that its terms can be altered under mutual
agreement - it was (initially!!!); and the agreement says nothing about
restricting buying or gifting of tickets, bicycles, cash, etc.
SJC neglects its constitutional duty

The SJC is Massachusetts last judicial resort to clarify the
constitutional due process rights in our state's trial courts through its
published case law to which lower court judges must adhere and thereby
assure the public of constitutional justice. Unfortunately the SJC's
dismissal of Leisk's appeal is a clear withdrawal from its constitutional
obligations of judicial clarification to Family Court judges. It has shown
that it will maintain an obvious agenda in our Family Court system of
disenfranchising fathers from their children and their constitutional rights
of due process and equal protection.

Unfortunately, fathers are not part of the correct "PC group" for the
attention of the SJC. Perhaps the SJC was simply too preoccupied with their
legislative determinations.


--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---


begin 666 bulletred.gif
M1TE&.#EA"0`+`/``)P0&)P8(:T`"*T($*UCC+40&,8`",9[C,:,IY26MZM
MK=Z]QN?.UN^EK^UO_.SO`$/(&/=24O=[_^$:_^$_^$A/^MI?^UK?_O
MY__O[__W]__________________________________________________ _
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M_____________________RP`````"0`+```(0@`Y"!Q(L&#! #!L.,@P,,.$
M"1(B)-@@$,,$#A,@!'@@L(($B! $(!#8( *$D $8"-208( ```0(;E!P8('!
&FS@#`@`[
`
end

Looks like MA is deadbeat state of the month! Right Fido?

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:42:27 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

SJC Upholds Cover-Up of Due Process Violations by Family Court Judge
By John Flaherty
President of Liberty Bell Union

On November 12, 2000, MassNews reported that the Appeals court had
reversed a criminal contempt judgment against Bill Leisk, for which he had
served 30 days in jail, but only on the ground that Leisk had not
effectively waived his right to an attorney without being advised that an
attorney was available. It did not address the due process violations of
Judge Kopelman of the Norfolk Family Court but remanded the case back to
Family Court for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court has approved the
Appeals Court decision.

Bill Leisk immediately appealed the decision to the Supreme Judicial
Court because the Appeals Court neither wrote a published decision nor one
that clearly showed the true errors of the lower court. The unpublished
decision was a clear cover-up of the horrendous constitutional due process
violations suffered by Leisk in a kangaroo criminal procedure administered
by Judge David H. Kopelman of the Norfolk Family Court.

Such due process violations occur repeatedly in Mass. Family Courts
generally against fathers because of a clear anti-father agenda in the
Family Courts well, known to any impartial observer. The decision was
written by Appeals Court Justice Fernende R.V. Duffly who was a Family Court
judge before her appointment to the Appeals Court in 2000. She sought
futilely during Leisk's "Oral Argument" to find another excuse to reverse
the ill-contrived contempt judgment against him rather than expose the
horrendous violations of a one-time fellow Family Court Judge. Devising an
unpublished appeal that essentially blamed 'pro se' defendant Leisk for not
adequately waiving his right to an attorney was her corrupt way out.

Bill Leisk was quite able to recognize his rights and Judge Kopelman's
gross denial of fundamental due process under his kangaroo criminal contempt
proceedings that immediately landed Leisk in jail for 30 days. Leisk's legal
competency is evident in his ability to write an appeal and reverse
Kopelman's contempt judgment- in spite of Justices who would prefer to have
his pleadings suppressed.

a.. The Trial Court's 'Errors' that were ignored by the Appeals Court -and
now by the SJC- were clearly briefed to both higher courts with proof. They
we

Family Court Judge Kopelman's ignoring due process requirements,
regardless whether or not a defense attorney is present, we
Stating within the first couple of minutes of the hearing that this was a
criminal contempt hearing where Leisk could be incarcerated (a hearing that
took all of 5 or 10 minutes) yet offered Leisk no counsel nor a waiver of
counsel.
Refusing Leisk's request for a jury trial or any trial.
Refusing to swear anyone in.
Refusing to allow Leisk to cross-examine the witness, call witness (his
daughter), but took unsworn testimony of ex wife's lawyer.
Virtually prosecuting the case himself, asking all the questions and
ignoring Leisk's objections to the hearsay evidence invoked by the trial
judge's own questions!
Ignoring testimony of Leisk's exwife's suppressed statement that she
initially agreed with the Hawaii trip.
Ignoring the previous NO Contempt finding of J. Harms on the same exact
issue some three weeks previously when Harms said, "He can buy 12 tickets.
you (the mother) are to tell your daughter not to go"(the mother had full
legal custody).
Ignoring the fact that Leisk took no further part in his daughter's trip
beyond initially buying the tickets as a promised birthday gift, and
finally.
Finding Leisk in contempt stating in his judgment, "purchasing the
aforesaid round trip tickets to Hawaii for his daughter, the defendant
intentionally and willfully violated a clear, unambiguous order of this
Court and is therefore Guilty of contempt" in spite of the fact that the
parent's written agreement states that its terms can be altered under mutual
agreement - it was (initially!!!); and the agreement says nothing about
restricting buying or gifting of tickets, bicycles, cash, etc.
SJC neglects its constitutional duty

The SJC is Massachusetts last judicial resort to clarify the
constitutional due process rights in our state's trial courts through its
published case law to which lower court judges must adhere and thereby
assure the public of constitutional justice. Unfortunately the SJC's
dismissal of Leisk's appeal is a clear withdrawal from its constitutional
obligations of judicial clarification to Family Court judges. It has shown
that it will maintain an obvious agenda in our Family Court system of
disenfranchising fathers from their children and their constitutional rights
of due process and equal protection.

Unfortunately, fathers are not part of the correct "PC group" for the
attention of the SJC. Perhaps the SJC was simply too preoccupied with their
legislative determinations.


--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---


begin 666 bulletred.gif
M1TE&.#EA"0`+`/``)P0&)P8(:T`"*T($*UCC+40&,8`",9[C,:,IY26MZM
MK=Z]QN?.UN^EK^UO_.SO`$/(&/=24O=[_^$:_^$_^$A/^MI?^UK?_O
MY__O[__W]__________________________________________________ _
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M________________________________________________ ____________
M_____________________RP`````"0`+```(0@`Y"!Q(L&#! #!L.,@P,,.$
M"1(B)-@@$,,$#A,@!'@@L(($B! $(!#8( *$D $8"-208( ```0(;E!P8('!
&FS@#`@`[
`
end