Categories

Archives

Should Attorneys Have Immunity When they Lie in Court?

By: Joyce & Gracemarie Tomaselli
March, 2021

An Act to strengthen rules governing attorney conduct; penalties for misconduct. SD.2236

Presented by Senator Diana DiZoglio (By Request)

We, Joyce Tomaselli and Gracemarie Tomaselli, know and have great respect for the many honest attorneys who take their oath seriously as “Officers of the Court”.

We filed our petition Senate Bill SD. 2236 because it greatly concerns us that the opposing attorneys, in our case, were deceitful to the judges so they would win! They know they have “immunity”.

No attorney should ever be protected by Absolute Immunity or Qualified Immunity when they have intentionally violated their oath. We truly believe that no one is above the law.

This legislation is of great public importance to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

Our hope is that this legislation will help other Massachusetts residents to NOT go through what we have gone through in our quest for justice. We have lost so very much.
We learned the hard way that Massachusetts does not have an adequate statute to protect its residents against attorneys who win in court because these attorneys committed fraud on the court, in other words “lied” to the judge(s), intentionally misrepresented facts and case law to deceive the court or any opposing party. In our case, the opposing attorneys were “granted absolute immunity”.

Several states have chosen to enact similar legislation specifically permitting civil actions: Arkansas, California, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Wyoming.

It is time for Massachusetts residents to have the same protection!

Please share this Senate Bill with your friends. We are asking for your support by contacting your Senators and Representatives to support this extremely important “Act to strengthen rules governing attorney conduct; penalties for misconduct” because it affects every person in Massachusetts.

If you want to provide testimony at the public hearing regarding this petition, you can!
This Act has been docketed as SD.2236 until a bill number is assigned; the legislation can be tracked by the docket number, including information regarding the committee to which it is eventually assigned and a public hearing with an opportunity to provide testimony regarding the petition.

malegislature.gov/Bills/192/SD2236

Tom Duggan

Tom Duggan

Tom Duggan is president and publisher of The Valley Patriot Newspaper in North Andover, Massachusetts. He is an author, host of the Paying Attention TV/Radio Program, lectures on media bias and police issues, is a former Lawrence School Committeeman, former political director for Mass. Citizens Alliance, and a 1990 Police Survivor. You can email your comments to valleypatriot@aol.com.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookFlickrYouTube

5 Responses to Should Attorneys Have Immunity When they Lie in Court?

  1. Gracemarie Tomaselli and Joyce Tomaselli Reply

    April 9, 2021 at 1:00 PM

    Tom Duggan thank you for publishing this article in The Valley Patriot March 2021 edition about our Senate Bill SD.2236. This Senate Bill concerns all Massachusetts residents who seek and expect justice in the Court system. We must all strive to get this bill passed and stop the immunity and protection granted to the attorneys who lie in court in order to win.

  2. Patti Hart Reply

    April 9, 2021 at 7:00 PM

    Hooray for you two ladies. This takes courage and a strong belief in your values that to focus on going forward takes a steadfast time consuming journey for others to ensure fairness in the legal system.Hooray again. Be strong and proud. Patti, Haverhill

    • Gracemarie Tomaselli and Joyce Tomaselli Reply

      April 9, 2021 at 8:21 PM

      Patti Hart, we thank you so very much for your kind and encouraging words! It certainly has been a very time consuming journey trying to seek justice for over 20 years! We have lost so very much. We pray our bill will pass and that attorneys will no longer be granted immunity when they lie to judges to win!

  3. Sandy Lemar Reply

    April 10, 2021 at 2:51 PM

    I applaud the effort, but the protective rules and laws are in place. The problem is the shocking lack of oversight of the attorneys and law firms that get to make use of their insider connections.

    Everyone is still talking about what happened when Chief Justice Marshall’s law firm wanted to help some attorneys create false records in order to steal client funds. Despite the clients’ reams of documentary evidence and sworn affidavits from multiple attorneys attesting to it, the high court refused to address it (SJC-1043, consolidating the mischief of SJC-10494, SJC-10495, SJC-10600, SJC-106011, and SJC-10602; filed as Travelers Indemnity Company vs. Picciotto, and then consolidated with Zabin v. Picciotto.) Their ruling left out the clients’ documentation of the repeatedly (and illegally) falsified court records – and the reams of case law, professional codes, and rules prohibiting it – that was before them.

    Our courts do so despite such things as Rule 3:09 quoting Rule 2:15 of the Code of Judicial Conduct: Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct, stating that:

    “Taking action to address “known” misconduct is part of a judge’s duties . . . A judge who has knowledge or receives credible information indicating a substantial likelihood that a judge has otherwise violated this Code, or that a lawyer has otherwise violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, is required to take appropriate action under Paragraph (C) or D). . . .

    [1] Taking action to address known misconduct is part of a judge’s duties. Paragraphs (A) and (B) impose an obligation on the judge to report to the appropriate authority the known misconduct of another judge or a lawyer that raises a substantial question regarding the honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, or fitness of that judge or lawyer. Ignoring or denying known misconduct among one’s judicial colleagues or members of the legal profession undermines a judge’s responsibility to participate in efforts to ensure public respect for the justice system. . .”
    ..
    The Massachusetts high courts knowing that, in addition to the sworn oaths of office that every officer of the court takes tthat also prohibit it:

    “Rule 8.4 on page 105 of S.J.C. Rule 3:07 prohibits “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” or any other conduct that is “prejudicial to the administration of justice. . . . ” (etc., etc., etc.)

    Things are so bad that the only way to protect the citizens of Massachusetts is to join the majority of states that elect judges. Doing so allows for public discussions that put the criminal deeds and misbehaviors of the tenured judges who assist scamming lawyers out in the open – as opposed to buried behind their sham rulings.

    As the Center For Public Integrity (in conjunction with Global Integrity) must have known when they gave Massachusetts an “F” for judicial accountability, in this state, things can’t get any worse.

    • Bloop Reply

      July 30, 2021 at 12:40 PM

      Agree! And I dare you to make a ~your feelings~ person care. We police what offends with so much intensity while the F rating is just background noise. So awful.

Leave a Reply