Massachusetts Victims of Crime
– On September 22, 2015 I received a letter with “accounts” covering five years. Most of said accounts have been paid without any notice. This is disconcerting to say the least as a substantial sum was paid to an individual who was hired to do an accounting, took three years, never finished, refused to be fired, and had to have someone pry the documents from him.
Said letter indicated that forms were due by September 30, 2015 or there would be reprisals – i.e., court action and further looting of an already despoiled estate. This left one day for a sham review of “accounts” without any supporting documentation for any of the schedules.
Said sham review was done on September 23, 2015 and the annotated forms were signed and mailed on 9/24/15 to prevent further reprisal. Whether the annotated forms will survive as mailed is doubtful as apparently other documents have been recreated. This situation is not an isolated one. See (below) McGarry v. Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc. et al. This case has been categorized as “Ivy Racket in the US District Court, Massachusetts, Deprives Disabled Nurse of Her Rights through Simulated Litigation.” “Conduct of simulated litigation [simulated minutes, orders, and electronic authentication of records] is a common practice in the state and US court, often to benefit financial institutions, corporations and government officials, and to deprive individuals of their lawful rights.” Dr. Zernik has assessed the electronic record systems of US courts (in MA – 19 years, $75M and barely functioning), CM/ECF, and PACER as large scale fraud undermining court integrity and Human Rights of US citizens. Dr. Zernik equates the US courts use of simulated litigation to that of racketeering – to which I believe I have been a victim.
– As to court record computerization, in 1996 the Massachusetts Legislature approved $75 million in bond money to create “MassCourts.” See (below) the article by Todd Wallack, Boston Globe, on how well that project has progressed entitled “Call it Big Data’s Big Dig – $75M, 19 years, still not done.”
In 2001 the House Post Audit and Oversight Bureau found that the courts failed to provide the Legislature mandated reports, did not adequately supervise the vendor (Deloitte), and delayed for years having an experienced project manager to provide oversight. This conduct resulted in ad hoc planning, cost overruns, and lengthy project delays. To date on line information is limited to given people and certain people view this so-called MassCourts system as worse than the computer system used for the past twenty years.
Mr. Harry Spence, Administrator of the Massachusetts Trial Court, indicated to Mr. Todd Wallack that he did not know how much, in total, including its operating funds, the courts have spent on MassCourts. Where does all this money go – with no oversight?
– Concerning Massachusetts accountability and transparency, see Mr. Todd Wallack’s article “Secretary of State regularly keeps government records secret.” The article states that the public records division of the Secretary of State’s office routinely sides with government agencies when requesters submit complaints that agencies are withholding documents and/or are charging excessive fees.
– Regarding the Massachusetts courts allowing pro-se litigants access to computerized court records, said courts do not. See (below) Mitchell v. Mulligan. Mitchell contends that “[i]t is the equality of opportunity that is lacking…; that barring pro-se litigants from remotely accessing the court’s computer system is an arbitrary and irrational policy that fails to advance a legitimate government interest…and burdens a fundamental right…of self-representation.” I can attest to the discrimination against pro-se litigants.
– As to political patronage gone amuck, see (below) an example cited in the article by the Massachusetts Whistleblower at Oversight Watch Massachusetts where they comment on the actions of Ms. Suzanne Bump, Massachusetts State Auditor; and confidentiality agreements with state payouts for silence. According to Mr. Harvey Schwartz, “[t]he only reason to have a confidentiality agreement is to protect the agency and the wrongdoers.”
– Concerning small claims courts in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe has highlighted the problems in its article (see below) entitled “No Mercy for Consumers.” It appears that many small claims courts in Massachusetts have become the accomplices of various collection firms – disregarding the rights of defendants and giving said collection entities the upper hand in court cases – similar to the probate courts’ behavior towards given lawyers/guardians.
“The creditors are all repeat players [as in probate court – given lawyers/guardians]. They know exactly how the game works; [w]e’re watching a fight between two players, one a skilled repeat gladiator, and one who’s thrown into the ring for the first time and gets clubbed over the head before they even get a sense of what the rules are.”
As stated in this article, these small claims courts have created a system that has made it “safe and very profitable for Massachusetts collectors” – as the probate court has done for given repeat lawyers/guardians.
I will reiterate the last sentence cited in Mitchell v. Mulligan Pro Se Appeal Case under “food for thought”: “[w]e are no longer a country of laws, we are a country where laws are ‘creatively interpreted’].”
For further insight into the Massachusetts Courts, see Gallagher v. Kattar, Jr. et al (see below).
Referenced Articles and Cases
7. (Gallagher v. Kattar, Jr.) 30969pdfGallagher (1)