"A902"
THE BACKWARDS 209A ABUSE LAW SITE
Law and court procedures that are "fair
on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye
or a heavyhand"
are discriminatory and violate the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356
CITATIONS PAGE
· RECUSAL A.K.A. THROW THE BUM OUT
· LISTING OF RELEVANT MGL 209A CASES
TIP
To copy a document to your word processor with out a lot of web
hyperlinks and format controls follow this proceedure:
1. From the Edit button in the browser click on SELECT ALL.
2. From the Edit button in the browser click on COPY.
3. In your word processor click on the EDIT buuton.
4. Click on the PASTE SPECIAL.
5. Click on Unformated Text.
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 220: Section 13B. Contempt cases; demand for retirement of justice sitting. Section 13B. The defendant in any proceeding for contempt of court in such a case may file with the court a demand for the retirement of the justice sitting in such case, if the contempt arises from an attack upon the character or conduct of such justice and the attack occurred elsewhere than in the presence of the court or so near thereto as to interfere directly with the administration of justice. Upon the filing of any such demand, prior to the hearing in the contempt proceeding, the justice shall thereupon proceed no further, but another justice shall be assigned by the chief justice of the court. |
Chapter 218: Section 35. Complaints, warrants and process; power to issue; disqualification to hear case; destruction of applications for complaints. [Section 35 . . . If, after a hearing on the issuance of a complaint or a request for a search warrant, by a justice or special justice of a district court he issues such complaint or warrant, he shall be disqualified from presiding over a trial on the merits of any matter brought to trial because of such complaint or warrant if the defendant objects to his sitting before any evidence is taken. . . ] |
|
MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAW 209A
MGL 209A Selected Case References Available Here:
|
Carroll v Kartell 10/2002 |
The
standard for
determining whether actions constitute abuse under c.209A is an objective one - the plaintiff's subjective
beliefs are an insufficient basis for granting a restraining order. |
|
Appeal of a defendant guilty of parental kidnapping and of violating G. L. c. 209A |
|
|
Unsuccesful appeal of sentence |
|
|
We conclude that G. L. c.
208, Sect. 18, empowers the Probate and Family Court to issue permanent
protective orders and incorporate them into judgments |
|
|
Appeal of violation of c. 209A order |
|
|
The defendant, who with reasonable inquiry could have discovered that the temporary order had been extended, cannot complain [of no due process] that he was deprived of an opportunity to seek to have that extended order vacated. "a party may not "shut his eyes to the means of knowledge which he knows are at hand, and thereby escape the consequences" |
|
|
Re: criminal violation under
the abuse prevention statute for "attempting to cause . . . physical
harm,"; definition of criminal ATTEMPT is more than request to hire to beat up;
threat to kill requires an overt act element which is an
undertaking, not merely talk; Words alone generally will not suffice. Judgment
REVERSED |
|
|
Spankings that leave red or
temporary pink marks do not justify by themself substantial risk of
abuse. |
|
|
Stalking and number of
events. |
|
|
We conclude that, henceforth, the statutory crime of stalking (M265S43) based on following a victim repeatedly will require more than two incidents of following. The judgment on the indictment charging stalking is reversed, and the verdict is set aside. |
|
|
It was error for the District Court judge to refuse to entertain a request for a permanent abuse prevention order against the defendant. Judge said that she was not authorized to do so. |
|
|
Commonwealth v. Raymond, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 488,766 NE2d 113 00-P-1143 Appeals Court |
(April 12, 2002). Court held that a defendant cannot be convicted of violating a "no contact" provision under a 209A order where the violation is unknowing, accidental, or inadvertent. |
|
Commonwealth v Silva 4/2000 |
Commonwealth is
not required to prove that the defendant actually intended to violate the
order, but only to prove that the act constituting the violation was
voluntary |
|
Challenges constitutional issues unsuccessfully regarding jury trials, self incrimination, property loss, due process, and civil actions |
|
|
Joseph Jordan vs. Clerk of theWestfield Division Of teh District Court 7/8/97 |
209A Vacated. X did NOT produce evidence to warrant a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that, in the time after he began his incarceration, the plaintiff's words or conduct, made by himself or through others, had reasonably placed her in fear of imminent serious physical injury. |
|
209A order should not have been issued because the conduct complained of (sending legal notices) did not constitute "abuse" |
|
|
Raises issue of constitutional right of familial association, but failed to raise it properly |
|
|
statutory term 'contact' is NOT unconstitutionally vague. |
|
|
Commonwealth offered no evidence that the defendant was either served a copy of the 209A order, or that he had actual knowledge of its existence and terms. The Commonwealth failed to establish an essential element of its case, and that denial of the defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty was error. |
|
|
Permanent restraining order should not be
issued solely on the basis that an order was issued in the past. |
|
|
Appellant Brief of 209A defendant countercharging malicious prosecution, civil rights violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and appeals anti-Slapp dismissal (M231S59H) |
|
|
Appeal of 209A violation for improper service, improper admitted evidence, abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed |
|
|
Sentence stayed pending appeal. First Amendment claim to free speech incorrect. Prior abuse evidence relevant in prosecution |
|
|
Opinion on burden of proof shifts, abuse, and custody in c.208, c209A |
|
|
Right to cross examine the respondent should be allowed but Judge may deny it |
|
|
Defendant is entitled to have that portion of order vacated that directs him to stay away from his sons |
|
|
Contention is that a "no contact" provision in the order violated his right to free speech, but that issue was not properly preserved for appeal and affirm the judgment. |
|
|
ch. 209A violation complaint requires a hearing |
|
|
Expungement of state computer abuse record not permissable |
|
|
The father "has hit my son and grabs him when angry." Without further explanation, that statement was not evidence of abuse within the meaning of the statute. |
Miscellaneous cases
|
Husband gets custody after false allegations of sexual abuse by mentally ill wife |
|
When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff. |
@2002 J.W. Wright III all rights reserved