RE:  J. William Wright, III  Plaintiff Vs. Linda S. Wright    Docket 93D-1294-DV1

Dear Ms. Butkiewicz:

I have prepared the enclosed motion which I will request to be heard in Worcester Court on Jan. 5, 2000. 

MOTION TO  STAY  MGL209A ORDER
 
 

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,
 
 

J. William Wright, III
Pro Se

CC: Sanford Durland attorney for L.S.  Wright
 

12/14/99
   Mr. Wright:
    I am returning your Motion to Stay MGL209A Order as Judge Lian did not approve the filing of this Motion 

Theresa Butkiewicz

cc: W.Sanford Durland III Esquire

Worcester , SS                        PROBATE COURT DOCKET NO. 93D-1294-DV1

MOTION TO  STAY MGL209A ORDER
 

The Defendant contends the stay should be allowed for the following reasons:
 

1) The Defendant will clearly win the appeal as the lower courts  have made numerous errors and shown extreme bias toward a male  Defendant

2) The current Abuse prevention Order is improperly written, confusing and vague in several areas; thereby, making it a null,  void, and unconstitutional per the Fourteenth Amendment  of the U.S. Constitution

3) The purported incident of abuse on which on this was originally written have been determined to not be abuse by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and by other state Supreme Courts.

4) The Plaintiff has clearly indicated she does not feel the Defendant is a threat to her son; and therefore Sean S. Wright should be removed from the order. To wit Mr. Durland stated  to this court  “And Sean will be 17 in December , and certainly our perspective is that if chooses to see his father, my client certainly won’t stand in the way.”  (See attached sworn transcript extract).

5) Yet this court has unexcusably and inexplicably continued the order with Sean Wright’s name on it. The court has not provided independent support and justification for the order  decision that the Defendant must stay away from his sons per  Smith v Joyce 421 Mass 523.

6) New cases indicate the re- issuance of  209A Order was improper and erroneous. In a hearing, the Plaintiff has complained of Defendant’s filing of law suites in the recent hearing.  This has been held to not be a valid reason for issuing a restraining order.  “The conduct complained of, i.e., the sending of legal  notices by mail or the delivery of such through a sheriff's department, was expressly permitted by the temporary 209A order. We conclude that the 209A order should not have been issued because the  conduct complained of did not constitute “abuse” as defined in G. L. C. 209A  “,  MICHAEL L. LARKIN  vs.  AYER DIVISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT  425 Mass 1020.

7) There is no indication any harm will come to the Plantiff or the parties child, Sean,  and thus no reason minimally  to not issue a stay regarding his name on the order.

____________________________________
J. William Wright, III      Pro Se