Message from the MA Judiciary: You’re on Your Own!

By: Aliana Brodmann E. von Richthofen, Feb. 2019

Whoever held out hope that Massachusetts would ultimately come through as a constitutional state had to finally give in. After a three year effort to create better accessibility to and transparency in the handling of public records, the proposed expansion of the public records law to cover the Legislature, Judiciary and Governor’s Office was terminated this month, rendering the entire effort useless.

In 2015 Chief Justice Paula Carey had appointed a Committee to develop and propose uniform Trial Court rules governing the public’s access to view or copy court case records, including paper and electronic case records, in a courthouse and on the internet, consistent with current Massachusetts laws, court rules, and appellate court decisions. Any complaint of resistance by the courts or government agencies to act accordingly would go to the Secretary of State.

As it turned out, the Secretary of State’s Keeper of Records was useful in obtaining some records, but she only monitors wrongdoings and does not enforce corrections of mishandled or “lost” documents. Her office essentially works like the Lifelock commercial where people are told by those expected to correct calamities that they merely monitor, not cure, them, leaving those stricken to their doom or at the mercy of a lawyer. Basically, six of one or half a dozen of another.

Now comes Massachusetts, true to its reputation as a criminal enterprise where state offices and courts regularly collude, conspire and respond in lockstep, as the only state in the nation, to insist that its Legislature, Judiciary and Governor’s Office had to remain exempt from the state public records law. The Legislature didn’t even bother to file a proper explanatory statement and the commission simply dissolved as a result or under pressure.

Their reason is obvious to anyone who ever dealt with these entities. We don’t need any explanatory statement. The proof is in the pudding. Given the toxic state of affairs in these here parts where the well-connected can negotiate their interests “under the table,” shop for judges who can refuse to explain arbitrary and contrary-to-law decisions without repercussions, and criminal complaints are dismissed by court clerks behind closed doors, the obstinate refusal of the Highest Court, Legislature and Highest Governing Office to allow transparency can only be seen as willful obstruction of justice. Access to the evidence of their habitual mishandling of documents in the well-known pay to play scheme that routinely deprives upright citizens of their constitutional rights to equality and due process is not wanted here.

Those who notice the display of the Sacco and Vanzetti Case in the John Adams Courthouse, where the Supreme Judicial Court hears appeals, may assume it is there as a reminder to the justices of the greatest miscarriage of justice in American history and a call to conscientious duty. But I believe otherwise. To me it seems like a cynical inside joke to brazenly advertise how (in)justice is served in these so often desecrated halls. Not for nothing did Chief Justice Marshal ambiguously state, upon the opening of this exhibit in 2007, that it was: “…part of the high court’s effort to give the public opportunities to learn about the legal system.” Indeed.

She, in fact, herself proved this travesty to me in 2014 before she abruptly stepped down, leaving the Appeal on my Retaliation case against the serial abuser Dana-Farber Cancer Institute hanging with significant documents “missing” and/or visibly altered upon review.

I speak from personal knowledge of the three sitting Chief Justices since 2010, Margaret H. Marshall, Roderick L. Ireland, Ralph D. Gants and the two Governors, Deval L. Patrick and Charlie D. Baker Jr. All five of them guilty of racketeering, colluding and conspiring to prevent hundreds, if not thousands, of parties to obtain their appropriate verdicts according to law.

Many people have been harmed by these depraved perpetrators, judge imposters, who betray instead of defending the law. Their victims write to them regularly in the hope that a pang of remorse or at least concern about their legacies will eventually cause them to come clean.

But I know better. If anything causes them anxiety it is the knowledge that by law a statute cannot expire as long as the conspiracy is in effect. And this is precisely what the State of Massachusetts has just proven by coming out full monty in its audacious attempt to evade accountability. That conspiracy is in effect in our highest echelons and by endeavoring to hold itself above the law Massachusetts must all the more be held to it.

©Aliana Brodmann E. von Richthofen & Valley Patriot, Inc. ◊