COMMONWEALTH
OF MASSACHUSETTS
WORCESTER, SS PROBATE & FAMILY COURT
DOCKET NO. 93D-1294-DV1
|
J. William Wright, III, Petitioner, v. Linda S. Wright Defendant. |
Motion for
Recusal
Petitioner
J. William Wright, III hereby
requests this honorable court to recuse Honorable John J. Moynihan for reasons that said judge is biased and
prejudiced against the petitioner all as more particularly appears in the
affidavit of Bias and Prejudice submitted herewith.
WHEREFORE petitioner respectfully moves and prays
that the Honorable John J. Moynihan remove and disqualify himself as judge, or
that the instant motion be heard by a judge other than Judge Moynihan pursuant
to the doctrine of Johnson v. District Court 674 P.2d 952 (1984) to the end
that another judge be assigned to hear and try
all matters in the instant case.
-------------------------------------
J. William Wright, III Pro Se
P.O. Box
43 Orlean, VA 20128
DATED: May 1, 1998
AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE
Petitioner
J. William Wright states that he believes the Honorable John J. Moynihan is
biased and prejudiced against him personally , and against fathers seeking
custody, and against fathers seeking significant involvement with their
children.
The
petitioner has been vocal in denouncing the decisions and attitude of the
Honorables John J. Moynihan and A.
Rotman and has made these proclamations public, in his courtroom, in newspapers and in other forums such as
Federal District Court.
The
Petitioner believes that the Judge John J. Moynihan has overstepped his
judicial bounds and authority, and has
exhibited severe bias and negligence in his position. Mr. Wright has made many efforts through the filing of motions to
alert Judge Moynihan to the situation and danger in which he has placed Mr.
Wright's children. Therefore Judge
Moynihan has had knowledge of the facts of the children’s behavior and has made his decisions in a willing and
knowledgeable manner. He has shamefully abdicated his responsibility to protect
these children for their good and the public good.
In
the name of the state of Massachusetts, he has continually ignored ongoing
escapades of Mr. Wright’s children. By
a repetitive pattern of decisions, he
and Ms. Wright have condoned that
these children skip school, be
suspended, be expelled, use drugs, sell
drugs, crash cars endangering their own
lives, and the lives of anyone unlucky enough to be on the road when such
irresponsible driving occurs. By
permitting these escapades to continue, Judge Moynihan has willingly and
knowingly shirked his authority and responsibility to the citizens of the
state, this parent, and these children as parens patriae.
Mr.
Wright has filed a number of motions because of and based on various acting out
behaviors described earlier. One
purpose of these filings was to be certain that both Judge Moynihan and Ms. Wright were aware of various events that
had transpired. Given Mr. Wright goes
to jail (for violating of the MGL 209A restraining order) if he communicates by
any method other than court motions,
this is the only proper and legal procedure for him to use. The primary response of Ms. Wright was to file a motion
requesting prior review of Mr. Wright’s
motions before he allows them on the docket.
Judge Moynihan in a meeting of the minds and understanding with Ms.
Wright and Attorney Durland agreed to
do this. This allows Judge Moynihan and
Ms. Wright to bury the dismal truth and situation they have created.
He has since dismissed many motions as “improper” and refused
petitioners hearings. “Sheriffs, having
eyes to see, see not; judges having ears to hear, hear not; Among the most dangerous things an injured
party can do is to appeal to justice. ” Mitchum v. Foster 92 S. Ct. 2151 at 2160. Such actions abridge Mr. Wright's
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights
and Massachusetts Constitution Part 1, Article 11 rights, and demonstrate bias.
There
is no lawful constitutional authority for a Judge to impose his beliefs to the
custody, care, religious, moral education of the children on another
parent or his family.
“Constitutional interpretation has consistently been that the parents’
claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their
children is basic to the structure of society.
It is cardinal that the care, custody, and nurture of the child reside
first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparations the
state can neither supply nor hinder” Ginsberg v. New York 390 U.S.
629 88 S. Ct. 1274. “Parental authority is plenary. It prevails over the claims of the state, other outsiders, and the children themselves. There must be some compelling justification
for state interference with parental authority.” Doe V. Irwin 441 F. Supp. 1247. Disciplinary actions of a parent towards a
disrespectful, foul mouthed,
disobedient, drug using son are not sufficiently compelling reasons to
interfere with parental authority and abridge Mr. Wright’s privileges to raise
his children per his reasonable values and methods. Privacy of the family is constitutionally protected by this
[First] amendment associational values,
which exists not merely to protect parental authority, but also to preserve the intimacy and
autonomy of the family relationship from intrusion. Poe v. Gerstein C.A.Fla.
1975, 517 F.2d 787, affirmed 96 S.Ct. 3202.
Due
to personality differences and social
and cultural differences between Mr. Wright and Judge Moynihan, Judge Moynihan and Mr. Wright do not see
“eye to eye” on many issues of personal
preference. However, a southern conservative does not have to
agree with a northern liberal viewpoint or raise his family that way. Mr. Wright, in presenting various motions
regarding his children, has made it known in court that he does not approve or
condone the way that Ms. Wright, Dr.
Fuhrmann, and the State of Massachusetts have been allowing the “trashing” of
his children. Mr. Wright’s
observations in open court are clearly
not appreciated. But then Mr. Wright does not like seeing his
kids on LSD and marijuana or selling illegal substances out of the marital home, and he has a hard
time understanding why the court allows this to continue.
The pervasive attitude of bias and prejudice in
the presentation of Judge Moynihan’s Divorce Findings of Fact indicate that he
does not like Mr. Wright and is biased towards him. For example, Judge
Moynihan’s Findings of Fact state that since the initiation of these
proceedings, the Husband ‘s conduct has been mean-spirited and
he sites several events as examples.
He discounts the Wife’s numerous
abusive actions to the Husband including
the acknowledged fact Mr. Wright was beaten on the head with a telephone
by Ms. Wright as one of her first
“divorce ” activities and then had the police
escort him from the house after said beating. "We should, of course, not protect a member of the
judiciary "who is in fact guilty of using his power to vent his spleen
upon others, or for any other personal motive not connected with the public
good." Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581.
Furthermore
a most damaging demonstration of
prejudice with respect to the upcoming Child Custody Hearings is found in Judge Moynihan’s Findings of Facts for the
Divorce (dated September 25, 1997) when he states “Though the husband seeks custody of his children, between February 1994
and April 1994, their [sic] were thirty (30) scheduled visits of which he did
not appear for ten (10) of them.”
This is based on unsubstantiated statements of Ms. Wright in pre-trial
memorandums which Mr. Wright does not believe were presented in the divorce hearings. No mitigating circumstances were allowed to
be presented to explain these facts such as the child claimed a headache or
claimed he had too much homework to do
or wanted to do a joint visitation with the other brother. Additionally on Dec. 21, 1993 Ms. Wright even stated to Guardian Ad Litem Dr. Fuhrmann that the boys wanted to do joint
visits with the father sometimes. When
you consider that the children custody
and visitation agreement had been assented to prior to the trial, there is no reason this should come up in
the trial as evidence and the Judge include such a Finding of Fact. Only the Judge's effort to "thoroughly roast
Mr. Wright" and justify his
decisions provides a reasonable answer.
For
example, the Judge's Findings of Fact note:
59. The
Husband described ..an incident … the
Wife swung an earthen ware plate and spilled baked beans , relish, and hot dogs
all over him.
The wife did not just spill food. She
hit me on the head with the plate and then the hot food fell on me. This is Assault and Battery with a
weapon.
60. The Husband testified to an incident wherein
the Wife… struck him on the head with a
telephone. The police eventually came
and the Husband left.
Ms. Wright admitted to a note describing the
incident. "the police eventually came" is a clearly biased understatement of Mr. Wright's being physically removed from the home by the
police and threatened with arrest although the petitioner had done no wrong and all present acknowledged
this.
61. Since the beginning of these proceedings, Husband's conduct has been mean-spirited…
Clearly to reach the conclusion of fact 61 after noting
facts 59 and 60 requires extreme bias and prejudice. To ignore such abusive
behavior indicates the Judge did not wish
to understand Ms. Wright's behavior of the 2 preceding paragraphs, or perhaps suggests it is acceptable because
Mr. Wright is a male. Sexist and biased? Yes.
If Mr. Wright had struck back, we know what would have happened. Unless one is masochistic, such abusive
behavior has a tendency to eventually make one react. Furthermore the tone as implied by the Judge in stating these facts would
suggest a lack of credibility: "the Husband testified".
If
we look at Findings 68 and 51, we see
clear bias and prejudice:
51c. Note Mr. Wright's Debt to Internal Revenue Service (1994) $xx,xxxx
68. The
Husband made one particular call in which he told the Wife that the IRS was
likely to take the marital residence in which she lived with the children. This representation has no basis in fact.
The
point being there were xx,xxx reasons or basis on Mr. Wright's part to feel justifiably Uncle Sam was going to be after him at some
time in the future. And he did. The IRS
has levied his bank account in
Massachusetts and cleaned it out.
69. In another
recorded phone call, …He mentioned the
CEO of Digital Equipment, her employer, as one of those people.
Judge
Moynihan issued an injunction against Mr. Wright based on Ms. Wright's false
allegation. He was very curious to see
how Judge Moynihan would handle this in the divorce findings. Judge Moynihan erred
as to the content of the tape and hasd no justification in fact. I
did mention contacting people of
influence in Harvard. That I suggested or threatened calling the CEO or mentioned
Ms. Wright's company or mentioned any names is a flat out lie. Judge Moynihan had the tape
recording and claims he listened
to it in chamber. If he did, he would
know this was not on the tape. But that
would not support the issuance of an injunction against the petitioner. Therefore
Judge Moynihan had to make this biased and prejudicial finding.
As
an aside on number 69, "In another phone call" is an error. It was the same phone call as #68.
Pasquale
DeSantis's secretary transcribed the tape when Judge Moynihan's office sent it and the tape recorder back to him by error. See
the Suggested Findings sent by Pasquale for the transcript. I also had a court recorder transcribe it. I
state again, under penalty of perjury, there is no mention in the tape of
anybody by name or of "Bob" (inferring Bob Palmer), or
"Ceo" of Digital Equipment.
Mr.
Wright like to move we listen to the complete
tape in open court and get it on the public record.
In
the case at bar, it is seen that time after time the Court, and primarily Judge
Moynihan deny the Petitioner the right
to see and be with his children. Yet
the court provides no criteria or
guidance as to what Mr. Wright should do to get this dismissed. The court leaves him to guess what is required for dismissal. At the least a prisoner in jail gets a
definite sentence and guidance on how to get out. Mr. Wright believes such vagueness in the length of sentence and the lack of criteria
for dismissal violates Fourteenth Amendment
Due Process and Equal Protection rights. Laws and court procedures that are "fair on their
faces" but administered "with an
evil eye or a heavy hand" are discriminatory and violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 S.Ct. 356 (1886).
Judge
Moynihan has deprived Mr. Wright of his constitutional rights provided by Article
29 of the Massachusetts Constitution
for an impartial interpretation of the laws and impartial administration of
justice. The MGLC 209A orders are issued almost exclusively against
men. Furthermore renewal, as seen in
this case, is a rubberstamp process
with clear partial prejudiced
administration of justice.
Judge
Moynihan knows Mr. Wright has driven 1000 miles round trip
approximately six times to 209A court renewal hearings which demonstrates much interest on the part of the Mr. Wright. However Judge Moynihan finds it
convenient to overlook or ignore this
effort. Judge Moynihan seems to prefer to deal in unsubstantiated
uncross-examined facts. Mr. Wright states
this is a clearly demonstrated impartiality.
Finally,
Mr. Wright believes that bringing these
facts to the forefront in a petition
for Recusal may in itself cause Judge Moynihan to be unable to impartially
judge the facts.
Signed
under penalty of perjury.
------------------------------
J.
William Wright, III
******************************************************************************
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served a copy of
this document upon:
S. Durland or David H. Lee,
Esquire, LEE, LEVINE and BOWSER, Suite 1400, 222 Berkeley Street, Boston, MA
02116-3751
by mailing
(postage paid) on ___May 1,
1998_______________________.
____________________________________
J. William Wright, III Pro Se
P.O. Box
43 Orlean, VA 20128
DATED:May 1, 1998