"A902"

THE BACKWARDS 209AABUSE 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  .YickWo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356

 

PETER's SUCCESS STORY OF VACATING A PERMANENT RESTRAININGORDER
AND THE WINNING BRIEF




a permanent 209A was granted on October 1.2001 however there was no proof of service, and I accidentally found outabout it the same day it was issued. As most of you know, the courts have been operating on the she saidstandard for quite some time now, so I just knew that I was going to experiencean exercise in futility. I had one witness that never got to testify. We started at about 10:00 am.  The very first issue I raised was findings of fact by the otherjudges. I did this by way of motion. All it accomplished was that there are none in the case folders, andthis judge can't order the other judge to supply them. To that I managed to get it on the record that there are no findingsof fact now present as directed by the guidelines, and that I don't expectthem  to suddenly appear at a later date.  We really got into this. "THANK YOU BILL. for the cases and BARBARAfor the guidelines." The ex had her high price lawyer with her. He is one of the lawyersI have filed complaints with the court about unethical practice. So during the hearing when the Atty. mentioned a criminal complaint fromMarch of 99, I thought it would be nice to go into that one on cross examinationand did. But the judge would not allow it, gee, imagine ethics not allowed ina court room. So, I came at it from a different direction, false police reports. Filedon  the advice of council. as cited in the police report. No one liked that either. Oh Well, I did raise the issue, on the record. However, I did argue that it was to discredit him, the Atty. her, theex and his law firm, as well as the Danvers police department. AND IT DID. I think I showed during cross examination that Mom was spiteful. Andnot  in real fear. on the 18 of July when she got the 209A, it can out of her mouth that  she had gotten notice of a hearing, but could not remember what it wasfor,  But could remember that in 1993, I got mad at her and assaulteda wall.   Yet stated I never hit her. "I know what you are capableof, that is why I am afraid.  I could not help my self on that one,and said yes I am capable of doing a great deal of damage, just like anyone else. maybe even more than most.  Then when I got into how this shit started, HER, caught, drunk, sleeping with her boss, and my claim of her assaulting me, and me not getting arrested? WOW, she even stated that I gave the police a hard time on thatday. RIGHT, a man in the vicinity of a domestic dispute, with the police present, giving then, the police a hard time, back in 1998, and the manwas not arrested? then back to the request for the findings of fact that don't existsand the fact I was given unrestricted visitation with my children. In twoweeks later had to file a contempt of court against her for not lettingme see my kids.   There was a lot more, but I think she looked less than credible, andjust a bitter vindictive bitch. When the Danvers police officer took the stand the domestic coordinatoradvisor, WOW I was impressed. He stated that he had written for over $1,000,000.00 in grant moneyin the past few years and had traveled all over the country training policeon how to handle domestic relations. That was all I needed. TITTLE 42 USC 651 incentive for procedural arrest? $143,000 I knew about, but $1,000,000.00, could it be safe to assume that you and yourdepartment benefit greatly from "reported 'incident of domestic abuse? When I asked for a break down on how the money was spent, the judgeput a stop to that line of questioning. I argued, I am attempting to show that he and his department have a vested interest in false reports of domestic abuse and false reported violations of  same. As the more reported incidents, the greaterthe need from money, I also touch on fraud, misappropriations of federaltax money, inflated reports to increase the money supply. He did get into particular with some detail during direct questioning BUT, and as we all know there is always a but. When I asked him about the time we where in court and his departmentwas  one of the defendant in a complaint of conspiracy to deprivea citizen of  there civil and constitutional right, his memory startedto fail but he knew it was a probable cause hearing S 218 35A  soI asked him if there was one on the MAIL TAMPERING COMPLAINT, the one I was arrested for in the P & F court house just before a hearing toreestablish  contact with my kids. " I don't remember" and would awhite caller crime like mail tampering be considered an act that wouldplace a person in fear of imminent serious physical harm  "yes, it is a violation of the order" did you or your department bother to investigate to accusation? " Idon't remember" But you do know it was Dismissed? "I don't remember" when I made a snide remark about his memory being as poor a the ex's, the  judge got on me for that, so that opened the door for me to bringup the   fact that I did motion for the appointment of councilas this is a permanent termination of my parental interest in my children. so we went around on that for a few  I felt as though I got enough on the record to indicate that thepolice  had a vested interest in all this BS, so they might be lessthan credible. complaint and 4 or 5 dismissal's, and no answer to the questionabout investigation other than "I don't remember" You would think that the answer to that question would be "we always investigate" what an ASSHOLE. And to think the feds have given him $1,000,000.00 to prosecute the likes of me? Then a member of the court was called, probation officer, the one that did the court order visit. His recommendation in writing, said one thing, but his testimony was more favorable that I thought it would be. PAS did come up, and my trip to DC for the farther's  day 2000rally on the ellipse, which is something I think everyone should make an effortto  attend this year. The most important thing was that my children did physical contact with me at the end of the visit. the prosecution rested  and I started to prepare to call my witness, Oh, sorry, I was called as a witness by her Atty. and stated that Ias a self representing litigant should be afforded the same privilegesas council and not have to take the stand. I was ordered to take the stand, oh well! To the first several questions presented to me I got into "I don't know if I should answer that as there could be a criminal aspect involving my personal liberties, and if council had been appointedI  could be advised as to the potential ramifications of your questionand the  answer." After the third answer like that, the judge said, "I am advising youto  answer the questions," in reply, "is that an order?" So now we have me ordered to take the stand as a witness for the other side and ordered to possibly testify against my self. It seemed that the ATTY. did not like most of my answers because he objected to most of them. It the old saying don't ask the question, if you don't already knowthe  answer. Besides, I am a much better speaker than a writer. anyway, the judge really did not want to go on any more.   she acutelyapplied the law as written, stayed in the guidelines and   vacatedthe order, There is a possibility that based on what I was doing during cross examination, that she The Judge, did not want me to realty start talking under oath, and realty get into the corruption of the P&F, Salem. The judge had my Pro Se pleadings in her chamber for over 1/2 hour before the hearing started, so if she started to read them, she knewwhere I would be going. BUT and there is always a but, In my pleading, not only do I demand that this order be vacated, BUT that it be expunged from the record, and did raise this at the endof the hearing, right after the judge announced that the order was to bevacated. So, APPEAL it if you are not satisfied. And I am not, satisfied


 

this is a quick adaptation from your cite, Oct. 18, 2001:   MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND DISCOVERY FOR PERMANENTM209A Motion for appointment of competent council to representPhillips in this permanent termination of parental interest. Motion / Demand for judge Sahagian's recusal. Now comes the Defendant Mr. Peter E Phillips who requeststhis Honorable Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing relative to averbal motion by Miss Budzianowski for a permanent MGL 209A restrainingorder, and per MGLA 209A Section 3 which states "The court may modify itsorder at any subsequent time upon motion by either party." In support of this motion Mr. Phillips states: 1) That there has been an evidentiary hearing to establishfacts under oath to support or vacate Miss Budzianowski complaint,on August 6,2001 judge Kagan presiding. 2) The Massachusetts News (appendix 1) indicates DedhamProbate Judge Robert Langlois is a fan of "due process", and will notallow a permanent order without discovery, or without a requested depositionon anything concerning the case. 3) The current judge Sahagian. Is not the original judgeand is not familiar with the original complaint orany alleged other than thoese given by Budzianowskiat the Ex Parte hearing of October 1,2001 4) JudgeSahagian on October 1,2001,Knowingly, and willfuly, without proof of service, did conduct an Ex Parte hearing anddid grant Budzianowski a permanent Restraining order. 5) Judge Sahagian on October 1,2001,Knowingly, withoutproof of service, did conduct an Ex Parte hearingand did grant Budzianowski a permanentRestraining order.(MGL 209A ) theappearance of impropriety would invoke CANON 2 which would automatically trigger CANON 3 (A)(1) (4)(B)(1)(2)(3)(a)(5) there for CANON 3 (C)(1) is a given.6) Mr. Phillipshas a fundamental constitutional right of confrontationof witnesses againsthim, and due process under the Fifth and FourteenthAmendment of the USconstitution. 7) On October 1,2001 judge Sahagian Knowingly and willfullydid violate Phillips' guaranteed rights under the Fifth and FourteenthAmendment ofthe US constitution. 8) It is well established that a Defendant has a rightto an evidentiary hearing in MGL 209A cases.A defendanthas a general right to cross-examine witnesses against him, Frizado v. Frizado420 Mass. 592.The practice in civil actions, however, is to permit cross-examination,id . See Adoption of Mary, 414 Mass. 705, 710, 610 N.E.2d 898 (1993); Rochev. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 400 Mass. 217, 222, 508 N.E.2d 614(1987); Custody of Two Minors, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 552, 556, 476 N.E.2d 235(1985),id.. A defendant or his counsel should be given adequate opportunityto consider any affidavit filed in the proceeding on which the Judge intendsto rely before being required to elect whether to cross-examine the complainantor any other witness, id.. 9) In SANTOSKY v. KRAMER, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) the SupremeCourt of the United States makes clear that the She Said Standard would be insufficient the permanently terminate Phillips' parental interestin his children. "In parental rights termination proceedings, the privateinterest affected is commanding; the risk of error from using a preponderancestandard is substantial; and the countervailing governmental interest favoringthat standard is comparatively slight. Evaluation of the three Eldridgefactors compels the conclusion that use of a "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard in such proceedings is inconsistentwith due process. "The extent to which procedural due process must be affordedthe recipient is influenced by the extent to which he maybe `condemned to suffer grievous loss.'" Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 . 262-263(1970), quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123,168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Whether the loss threatenedby a particular type of proceeding is sufficiently grave to warrant morethan average certainty on the part of the factfinder turns on both thenature of the private interest threatened and the permanency of the threatenedloss. 10) In M. L. B. v. S. L. J. 519 U.S. 102 (1996) the SupremeCourt of the United States makes clear that the appointment of councilwould seem to be mandated in any procedure to permanently terminatea parents interest in his or her children. "Nor may access to judicial processes in cases criminalor "quasi criminal" in nature, Mayer, 404 U.S., at 196, turn on abilityto pay. The Court places decrees forever terminating parental rights inthe category of cases in which the State may not ``bolt the door to equaljustice.'' Griffin, 351 U.S., at 24 (Frankfurter, J., concurringin judgment). Pp. 15-21. This Court has repeatedly distinguished parental statustermination decrees from mine run civil actions on the basis of the uniquedeprivation termination decrees work: PERMANENT destruction of all legalrecognition of the parental relationship. When deprivation of parentalstatus is at stake, however, COUNSEL is sometimes part of the process that is due. See Lassiter, 452 U.S., at 31-32. " Therefor, the relief sought by Phillips at this time wouldbe as follows: 1) An appointment of competent council paid forby the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 2) A stay in the proceeding pending completion of discoveryby appointed competent council for the defendant. 3) That Judge Sahagian recuse herself from any furthermatters concerning Phillips WHEREFORE the Defendant Peter E Phillips respectfully requeststhat the court grant these motion and grant him the relief sought,and other relief as may be just.

This Men'sRing site is owned by A902 - THE BACKWARDS209A LAW SITE click hereto join the ring