Who Was The Unknown Barnstable Superior Court Judge?
This story is part of our exclusive series about Pro Se Litigants, Case: Torres v. Torres
On Thursday January 9, 2014, the Massachusetts Barnstable Superior Court reversed its order (at least we think it was an order) left via Skype by an Unnamed Judge (listen here), and delayed the scheduled Rule 16 Conference in the case of Torres v. Torres. The Rule 16 Conference was in regards to the Torres v. Torres case’s remand to the Barnstable Superior Court after that Court’s decision was overturned by the Massachusetts Court of Appeals.
Of note was that, as had been requested by the Plaintiffs, Barnstable Court did send its rulings to the them in a PDF file attached to an email.
Originally a request was made by the Plaintiffs in the case of Torres v. Torres that they be allowed to attend the Rule 16 Conference by telephone. The Massachusetts Court of Appeals had previously taken the unusual step of allowing the Plaintiff/Appellants to argue their Appeal via telephone after examining the unique facts of the case. One of the facts being, the wrongful eviction of the Plaintiff/Appellants by the Defendants. This eviction was granted by the Massachusetts District Court based, in large part, on arguments made by the Defendant’s Attorney, Seth G. Roman of Wilkins, DeYoung & Carter, who argued that Judge Christopher J Muse of Barnstable Superior Court had dismissed the Torres v. Torres case, and as such the contracts (Contract #1 and superseding Contract #2) of that matter had also been invalidated. The Massachusetts Court of Appeals disagreed and overturned the ruling of Judge Christopher J Muse and sent the case back to the Barnstable Superior Court for trial, stating:
It is undisputed that Jesse has available to him now a viable action in quantum meruit. Because the contract specifies that Jesse’s damages will be the very monies and interest he loaned to his parents…” – Order available here.
In our exclusive story, Judge Christopher J. Muse: Are the wagons circling at Barnstable Superior Court?, we go into detail on the order issued by the Unknown Judge at Barnstable Superior Court left via Skype (listen here). It stated that the Plaintiffs would be in Barnstable Superior Court at 9:00 AM EST, knowing that the Plaintiffs had been declared Indigent (flat broke) by both the Massachusetts Court of Appeals and Judge Robert C. Rufo of the Barnstable Superior Court. Simply put, the Unknown Judge ordered the Plaintiffs to attend a conference thousands of miles away and one for which they did not have the means to attend. The order completely ignored the way in which the Massachusetts Court of Appeals conducted the matter when it was before them, even though the lower court traditionally follows the procedure set by the higher court.
The irony is that it was Judge Christopher J Muse, the judge who arguably caused the eviction in the first place, who overturned the order by the Unknown Judge, postponing the Rule 16 Conference until the Plaintiffs’ Motions can be heard, one of which is to allow the Plaintiffs to attend the Conference via telephone.
Judge Muse did follow the Massachusetts Court of Appeals’ example and allowed the Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to seal Plaintiffs’ address (available here). It contained overwhelming evidence of death threats, including a now dead named party in that complaint, made against the Plaintiffs by certain of the Defendants. The other motions he dismissed without prejudice as the Plaintiffs’ Motions could now be filed in accordance with what Plaintiff Torres calls the Gospel of the Massachusetts Superior Court, Rule 9A. When we asked for Plaintiff Torres to comment on the rulings of Judge Christopher J. Muse regarding the Plaintiffs’ motions, he stated:
First, I would like to thank the Court for allowing our request by sending its rulings in a pdf file attached to the email they sent us. The motion rulings appear on the surface to be fair, delaying the Rule 16 Conference until the balance of our motions can be heard and basically delaying the majority of the remaining motions, which will now be heard after service is made 9A.
Judge Christopher J. Muse did seal our address to prevent it from being disclosed by those who have threatened to kill us. However, he also denied our motion to serve our pleadings electronically (available here) in the same manner the Massachusetts Court of Appeals uses in their emotions. He took the alternative step of ordering that the Defendants’ Attorneys be sent a separate copy of our address and ordered them not to disclose our address to anyone.
I cannot, and will not disclose our address to their Attorneys, as I simply don’t trust the attorneys with Jennifer’s or my life, and for good reason. I will be filing a Motion to Reconsider under Massachusetts Rule 9D with an alternative plan which will provide a full paper 9A package to the Court, while protecting our safety and will place little or no additional burden on the parties.
We will be attaching a number of emails, quotes from the transcripts and actions by Attorney Jeremy M. Carter which will certainly validate our concerns. This will include quotes from the transcripts with Attorney Jeremy M. Carter openly mocking our charges of the death threats in open Court in front of Judge Christopher J Muse. Apparently Attorney Carter hasn’t used his alleged FBI contacts to call the California DEA and confirm that one of the parties concerning the death threats was killed from a gunshot wound to his head from a 50 caliber Desert Eagle.
Then there is the complete lack of discipline demonstrated by his law firm, Wilkins, DeYoung & Carter of Hyannis, Massachusetts, shown when they sent us their clients’ privileged documents, and we are the opposing party! This lack of discipline by his law firm is not something that we are willing to stake our lives on, would you? I doubt Judge Christopher J. Muse, under the same circumstances, would put his family’s safety at risk after reviewing our documents, and I seriously doubt any other Judge would.
It is beyond any court’s power to make an order in a civil procedure that would put any litigant in a life threatening situation. This is not a criminal conviction hearing. We will once again drive a few hundred miles to mail to the Defendants’ Attorneys, our Motion to Reconsider in accordance with Massachusetts Superior Court Rule 9A, so as to not disclose our location to them.
We will publish the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider once the Defendants’ Attorneys at Wilkins, DeYoung & Carter have had time receive them. Motions filed:
- Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for change of venue (here)
- Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for the recusal of Judge Christopher J. Muse (here)
- Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for rule 16 conference to be heard by telephone (here)
- Plaintiffs’ memorandum of facts surrounding the actions of the Barnstable Superior Court Clerk’s Office in the above entitled matter (here)
- Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to serve the defendants electronically in the same manner and conditions as used by the Massachusetts Court of Appeals for motions, or as they are better known, emotions (here)
- Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to seal Plaintiffs’ address (here)
- Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to set aside MSCR 9A requirements for this and the motions contained herein, as notice of a scheduled rule 16 conference was not received by the plaintiffs until December 31, 2013 at 3:41 pm est, making it impossible to comply with superior court rule 9a service regarding the scheduled rule 16 hearing (here)
- Attachments (here)
Court Rulings on the Motions:
- All of the Massachusetts Barnstable Superior Court’s Rulings were sent to the Plaintiffs in one PDF file available (here).
- Is Christopher J. Muse a bad Judge? see what attorneys and pro se litigants are openly posting about him.
- Was Massachusetts Judge Christopher J. Muse so embarrassing on tape that the Court ignored its own order?
- Judge Christopher J. Muse overturned; Pro Se Appellant
- Barnstable County Superior Court Clerk’s Office: was it Incompetence or Vengeance?
- Is momentum building to Elect Judges in Massachusetts: momentum is growing to draft former Impeacher of Judge Shirley R. Lewis to head new effort in Massachusetts?
- Torres v. Torres: the case in a nutshell
- Torres v. Torres: a story of two pro se litigants’ battle, not just for justice, but their very survival