Here is a true story about the people who bring us the News and of me

bringing it to them. I will let my pictures tell most of the tale. While all the
reporters were investigating something to report I was trying to report
something worth investigating all the while I was investigating them and now
I have something to report. How’s that for a statement? I took some photos
of my endeavors and saved the phone logs and their names. I am sure if they
jog their memories and see my own photo that the light will dawn on their
marble heads. The first thing I did was give them some clues and showed
them some of what was about to be placed in confidence behind the closed
doors of the Board of Bar Overseers. I left it all before Good Friday with
my phone number.
Here is a copy of it:
Mar.29, 2002

This will stand as my statement. I am not talking. I am doing

something. This is no joke. I need a witness to verify it was done
and to print my statement about it in full. This is it. At the
proper time I will prove to you who I am. I will insert my name in
the proper locations. I will show you that the documents I have
shown you go into the correspondence before I seal it in front of
you. I will expect someone to accompany me to the Overseers
office and verify for me in writing that it was done. This is not
news until I make it news by doing it. You will not know I did it
unless you witness it. These are my words and you should not
print any of them until I say ok. If you agree in writing then
please follow me.
To prove my point that I do what I say but not always say what
I do, I will present to you my two most recent letters to the Bar
Council and The Board of Bar Overseers. You judge me for
yourself.
I know they are well respected Members of the Bar but they
are employed in an office to serve the public. As a Member of the
Public I have found their services lacking. It is a big read and
somewhat boring but I did my best to inject some entertainment
into a serious matter. Nonetheless it ought to give the Members
of the Bar lots to chew on this weekend.
Upon delivering the first letter contained here and calling the
other office about my concerns I waited almost one week for a
response from them before going forward with my matter. I know
they don’t love me but they should have called or written to me to
effect some sort of amends. I am not an unreasonable man and I
can understand a mistake or a misunderstanding. I did not set out
to torture them but merely to seek justice. Apparently they think
I am bluffing so the cards must fall where they may. I am calling
them out with the second letter.

Mar. 19,2002

John W. Marshal
Assistant Bar Council
75 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110

Mr. Marshal please do not permit yourself to think of this as any sort of
personal attack. I believe that as The Assistant Bar Council you are acting
under this rule:
Section 7. The Bar Counsel
(7) may delegate any duties or functions to a duly appointed assistant acting under his or her general
supervision.
I assume that you are fulfilling his desires therefore I must take up the
matter with him.

Section 2.2 Contents of Grievance

Each grievance relating to alleged misconduct of a lawyer shall be in writing and signed by the complainant
and shall contain a brief statement of the facts upon which the grievance is based. Verifications of the
grievance shall not be required. If necessary, Bar Counsel will assist the complainant in reducing the
grievance to writing.
Section 2.3 Distribution of Grievance Forms
Bar Counsel shall furnish forms to each person who requests one. Such forms also may be made available
to the public through the offices of the clerks of court in each county and through such other offices as may
be designated by the Board.
It has been over two months since I first notified the Bar Council of my
desire to file a complaint. As of yet I have not even seen the form.
The OBC serves the public in the following ways:
•investigates and responds to complaints of unethical conduct by attorneys
•prosecutes attorney misconduct cases before the Board of Bar Overseers and the Supreme
Judicial Court
•provides information on the bar disciplinary process and alternative remedies
Am I not part of the public?
Is not the Bar Council at the public service?
I am attempting to make this letter as brief as possible to aid you in fitting
it in your schedule. I do not want to be redundant so perhaps after reading
this you may choose to review all of my other correspondence with this
office.

Clearly you can see that I composed this letter to you prior to our meeting.
Obviously I was wary of what you were going to say to me with regard to the
policy of the Office of the Bar Council to await a decree of a court before
taking action. I have found no such statement of policy or of any other
policy. Should not an office in service of the public have their policies in the
public view? How am I to become informed of them if they are not found in
writing? I did however find this rule:
Section 11. Matters Involving Related Pending Civil, Criminal, or Administrative Proceedings.
The investigation or prosecution of grievances or complaints involving material allegations which are
substantially similar to the material allegations of pending criminal, civil, administrative, or bar disciplinary
proceedings in this or another jurisdiction shall not be deferred unless the Board or a single member
designated by the chair, in its discretion, or the court, for good cause shown, shall authorize such
deferment, as to which either the court or the Board may impose conditions.
Thus the policy you have stated to me does not seem to adhere to this
rule. You may have noticed I did not allow you to talk too long about such a
policy by word of mouth. Just such policies not in script without any
foundation in the rules are simply words from the mouth to me. Once they
are in the wind they are part of the wind and just like the wind they are:

Easily forgotten
They change direction and strength from day to day.
Sometimes there is none at all.
Being understandably dubious of anything else you may wish to tell me I
elected to write this letter. If I fail to make myself understood I will
present it to you as my best effort to have the Bar Council agree with my
position in this matter.
 Within our phone conversation on Mar. 19/02 I asked about the response
of the respondent. You did not go into detail about what he said. I would like
to have a copy of his response. What I gathered from what you said he
claimed to be acting under the direction of the trustee. Even if that were to
be true he should be aware of such things as stated in a recent article by
two of The Assistant Bar Councils Susan Strauss Weisberg and Roger Geller
I quote:
“Rule 3.3(a)(2) requires a lawyer to disclose a client's fraud to the extent necessary to avoid "assisting" the
fraud, even if the information is otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. Comment [2A] to Rule 3.3 establishes a
special meaning of "assistance" that goes beyond the conduct associated with an aider or abettor or a joint
tortfeasor. Under that special definition, a lawyer's mere failure to disclose an unrectified client fraud of
itself constitutes assisting in the fraud “
These members of the Bar knew full well that all interested parties did not
sign off on the First and Final Account. And even if not then they certainly
do now and yet are working very hard to cover up that fraud. They are using
their licenses as Members of the Bar right now to aid the trustee in his bid
to escape justice. This is not fair for my wife and I to be forced to compete
with them pro se while they employ every trick in the book afforded by the
licenses they hold that should be revoked over this very matter.
I state this plainly. These men are thieves and liars. I want them
disbarred. I want them investigated under criminal laws. I want all Offices in
the service of the public to simply do their jobs. If it were I that had done
their deeds I would have been crucified years ago. The fact that they are
Members of the Bar should not help them escape the simple truth of the
matter.
I am here today to try to make this matter come quickly to a head. Enough
time has passed. Some of these men are quite old. If this goes on for too
long they may go to their graves with honors they do not deserve. All their
wrongs maybe swept under the carpet and none of it will matter to them
anymore anyway, That offends my sensibilities.
I am providing you with even more evidence to support my reasoning. All of
it is in the public record. I invite your office to study it all. I welcome any
argument you may have against my opinions. I will respond to them quickly
I have no fear of bringing it all to the public’s attention. I would invite
these members of the bar to file suit against me over it. I would defend my
position with glee before a jury of my peers not theirs. I strongly believe
that once the public becomes aware of these men and their deeds I will
become merely first in line of a long line of people who wish to complain of
them as well. Therefore it is imperative to me to file my civil lawsuits first.
I will decide when and if it is prudent for me to disclose this matter to the
public. So I must remind you of this rule:
Section 9. Immunity.
(1) Complaints submitted to the Board or to the bar counsel shall be confidential and absolutely privileged.
The complainant shall be immune from civil liability based upon his or her complaint; provided, however,
that such immunity from suit shall apply only to communications to the Board or the bar counsel and shall
not apply to public disclosure of information contained in or relating to the complaint.
(2) The complainant and each witness giving sworn testimony or otherwise communicating with the Board
or the bar counsel during the course of any investigation or proceedings under this rule shall be immune
from civil liability based on any such testimony or communications; provided, however, that such
immunity from suit shall apply only to testimony given or communications made to the Board or the bar
counsel and shall not apply to public disclosure of information attested to or communicated during the
course of the investigation or proceedings.

Frankly I was amazed that I was compelled to point out to you the reasons
for my complaint against these members of the Bar. The reasons were
complete and fully explained within the documents that I gave to you on Mar
19. I was astonished by your dispute of those reasons. I was appalled that
you did not do me the courtesy of listening to the tape you requested.
Particularly after I went to effort and expense to provide it to you as
quickly as possible. I do not think that you intended to be rude but were
merely acting on the wishes of your superior. So I wanted us to meet
immediately so that we would waste no more of each other’s time.
What I think you fail to understand is that you are employed to deal with
people such as I. I am talking to you at your place and time of work.
However I am on my own precious time and am not being paid for it. All of
the time I have spent on this matter with the Office of the Bar Council I
have felt that I am being deliberately stalled and set aside for no reason I
can accept. The time of Friday afternoon at 2 p.m. did not go unnoticed by
me. Why not Monday morning at 9 a.m.?
I am willing to wager we don’t start talking till well after two and I will be
ushered out the door before four. Not nearly enough time to discuss a
matter that warrants a serious investigation.
I have a good reason to think that your office has already discussed my
complaint with other offices in the service of the public. The fact that two
letters arrived from different offices on the same day saying essentially
the same thing appears to be no coincidence. Plus the choice of words in the
letter from the other office were similar to my words in my letter to your
office not theirs. This leads me to believe that these two offices have
agreed to pacify me but to handle me in a way that suits their ends not mine.
Who is it you are working for you or me?

I think that both offices may have agreed that my points may be valid, but
that they have chosen to let the matter rest in the hands of the courts, just
in case I am wrong. Therefore they will save themselves from any potential
embarrassment by starting an investigation based on the claims of some
private individual who may be crazy. I also think that they may have agreed
to begin their investigations into this matter at the same time so as not to
embarrass the other by taking action first.

The fact that you have no time to properly view the information that I
have provided with my complaint supplemented by the fact that you disagree
with the complaint makes you unacceptable to me to investigate it or to
speak about it on my behalf. I ask of you to hand this complaint to someone
else in your office in the hope that they may be able to afford more time to
this matter with the attention that I know it does merit.
During our first phone conversation I stressed how important it was to me
for us to meet eye to eye. I explained that I thought men of our age should
have honed our senses enough to recognize when another man is being
serious and sincere. At least our meeting will have satisfied that request of
mine. Please relay your observation of me to the Bar Council. If you were to
ask me what to say about not telling, I would have to say that you just met a
simple, sincere and serious man who may be capable of raising a little hell but
in a legal and fun fashion. I look forward to my impression of you. Right now
I think you have been stroking me while under orders from above to do so.
Perhaps you can change that thought but not so if you are reading this.
Lastly I wish to state that if our meeting has been recorded in any way
that I have no objection to it. I do demand a certified copy of that record
as soon as possible. All that I have said is true or to the best of my
knowledge.
I have vowed
To my seed
As one who is proud
The promise to proceed
To say all the way
If there is the need
 By way of pro se
The mark of our breed.

Please excuse my poor prose of pro se but I can’t deny my nature.

I not telling delivered in hand the enclosed letter to John W, Marshal

Assistant Bar Council Mar. 22, 2002

Last Friday there was a pretty mean wind blowing through

Bean Town that chilled to the bone. It didn’t bother me much
though. I was pretty hot and feeling twice as mean. My biggest
problem was finding a spot to smoke before going up the ivory
tower.
I found my spot beside a port o potty just off Federal Street
down from #75. It fit my mood. I loved the contrast too. I bet
more people have felt more appreciation for that poor little port
o potty than the fine structures towering over it. It should be on
the tourist maps. They may talk of the fine buildings but they are
grateful for the port o potty even if they never talk about it.
Nature will not be denied. On that subject I would like to praise
the person that designed the port o potty and the person that
named it. I believe that form should follow function. The thing
appears to me to perfect design of sturdiness simplicity and
economy to suit the task. As for the name it is true, humorous
and easily remembered. Perfect as well. As for the buildings
around the port o potty they are impressive and finely built. By
their shapes though they look like someone is showing off what he
can do. When my kids ask why they were built that way I can’t
give a reason that makes sense to them or me.
There was no denying it was a bad hair day. I had resolved to
let my hair down once inside in order to sooth my soul for being
forced to dress up and mind my manners with people I could not
trust. I was determined to be the perfect gentleman my mama
tried hard to teach me to be. To first and foremost get the
forms and see them filed. Try my level best to be understood. If
not give him the letter and walk. And most important of all to
watch his eyes and listen very closely to every word from him.
Out of his mouth and through a veil of manners may come the
meanest wind of all.

I was laughing when I was having my next smoke before 3 p.m..

Can you tell I am writing a book. It’s a true story. What started
out as a minor spit and chew is getting very interesting. If I lose
it all maybe the book will sell. Losers buy books too. Misery loves
company
.
Round Two

Mar. 28, 2002

Board of Bar Overseers

75 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110

Dear Sirs and Madams:

My complaints should be evident within the Office of the Bar Council

docket. There are no grievances whatsoever consented to and signed by me
in the BBO File No. B0-00-0000 that bears my name. There are only letters
from me trying to assert my right to file a grievance and have it investigated
properly. If my grievances are disputed I ask the Board of Bar Overseers to
allow me to argue my complaints pro se against the Bar Council and his
Assistant It should be my right to speak for myself in any legal matter that
pertains to me.
I still wish to assert my right to file my grievances against the Members
of the Bar that I first approached the Bar Council about. In view of the fact
that I have no faith in the Bar Council to speak for me I ask that I may
pursue those matters pro se as well. There will be no need to investigate. I
already have. I am not a Member of the Bar but I do know my rights. In
these matters I do not want to remain silent.
I maintain that the Bar Council knew full well how his Assistant was trying
to handle my matter. He must be held accountable for his Assistant's acts.
He must abide the same laws and rules as any the Member of the Bar he
investigates. I guess I may now be speaking for lawyers in a pro se fashion. I
hope they agree.

My reasoning is this.
1. The Bar Council was well aware of me and this matter I had written a
personal letter addressed to him complaining of his staff and asserting
my right to file a grievance around two months ago.
2. The allegations I wished to file in a grievance should have been
considered grave by his office in light of the evidence I have presented
to them. The facts should have made him take notice. He must have
discussed the matter with his assistant within that time period.
3. His assistant knew that he was having trouble convincing me of his
statements if he could not show me the foundation of those statements
within the rules of his office.
4. His assistant knew that I would have no hesitation to complain to his
supervisor if I thought things were improper.
5. Thus he must have been acting under his supervisor’s direction.
I had an idea of the way that they were attempting to handle my matter.
They wanted to stall and delay my filing any grievance. If no grievances
were filed then they were not required to act and the matter would rest in
the hands of the courts. All the while they let me think that they
understood the nature of the reasons I wanted to file a grievance and that
they were acting on their own accord.
When I tried to add a second lawyer from the same law firm to the
docket I realized something was amiss. Finally I was allowed to darken their
door to address any misunderstanding and hopefully start the process.
I was very surprised to see the Office of the Bar Council ignore the rules
of their office and laws of the state to deny me my rights. His assistant
gave me the response from the respondent. In that response is my name but
no mention of a grievance and the respondent admitting that he knew what
was in the docket in my name. All correspondence to the Office of the Bar
Council and were to remain confidential. Only a grievance consented to and
signed by me should have been disclosed to the respondent. If they wanted
to act on a grievance it should have been in the Bar Council’s name not mine
without my consent and signature. I asked to see my so called grievance. He
claimed that the letter to the Bar Council in which I was demanding to
assert my rights to file a complaint stood as my grievance. I say nay not so.
He would not affirm anything he said in writing nor would he show me in my
copy of The Board of Bar Overseers rules proof what he stated.
I noticed in the response where the respondent lied to the Bar Council.
What is also interesting is respondent is starting to abandon his own client
to get himself off the hook in case his firm loses in a pending matter. No
honor there.
In the course of our discussion he only wanted to discuss whether or not
my reasons to file against the first lawyer were valid. He did not want to
talk about my right to file a grievance and his obligation to assist me in
writing it. He definitely did not want to discuss a second complaint at all. He
admitted that he had not even reviewed all of what he asked me to provide
him with and yet he stated I had no basis to file a complaint.
He offered unsolicited legal advice in the sense that he questioned as to
why we would not settle and he stated that he thought I would lose in court.
He said he thought my thoughts were scattered. My state of mind is my
business. I did not ask his opinion of it. I did think that this might be a case
of the pot calling the kettle black.
When he asked me to prove to him that there were legal grounds to be
before the court on a pending matter, I pointed to one line on one page of
many that showed that his question was ridiculous. I then demanded the
grievance forms. He agreed to give them to me but not to provide assistance
in writing them and that I must agree to leave the office after receiving
them. I agreed immediately. Little did he know that I now required the
forms to complain about him and his superior. I presented him with the
letter I composed earlier and left. We shall see who is the scatterbrain.
I consider this to be an open letter to the Board of Bar Overseers and to
the public as I declared I would do in the letter to Mr. Marshal. These are
my words and I swear they are true and to the best of my recollection. How
and when I bring them into the public view will be my decision.
I consider this to be a very serious matter and do not address it lightly.
I hate the thought that this may be standard operating procedure of the
Bar Council. Just think how many decent people with valid grievances may
have been intimidated and turned away by this office in the past.
 I have discussed this matter with many Members of the Bar and many
offices in service of the public including the court, the District Attorneys
Office and the Attorney General’s Office. All said essentially the same
thing, and that is “it’s not my job” and passed the buck to The Board of Bar
Overseers. Perhaps since the buck stops here we shall see what it is worth
these days.

If you read it all I thank you. I am sorry about the length but I
couldn’t figure another way to do it. Before you dismiss me as a
nut you should ask yourself two questions.
Why would such Members of the Bar not let me write my
grievances as per the rules of their office?
Why would a family man go out on a limb to file a grievance
against the Bar Council, bring it to public attention and be open
to a lawsuit if it were not true?
If you reached the same conclusion I did and have read the
rules of the Board of Bar Overseers. Then you will understand
why I have to go public.
Please don’t bug me or mine about it. This is a public letter but
I am a private person. We do have our rights in common though
so this should be of some interest to you. They picked this fight
not me. I saw no other option but to go public or give up and walk
away. Methinks they are banking on me walking. I would be mad
at myself the rest of my days if I chose that path. It is me I
fear the most and I can’t escape myself.
I am not talking but I may sell the words I choose to write. If
you are curious as to who the other fella’s are you will have to dig
through the public records which is your right to do. While you
are there you would be wise to look into your own affairs in case
someone claimed you signed something you didn’t.
 If one had called they could have seen and copied it all and witnessed me
deliver it. In my opinion it was a pretty good scoop. No one called so I did it
on the best day any fool would. To verify that I did it I took an exact copy
to these folks because it should be right up their alley:
 The next Day I went back I got the documents and checked to see that
they were all there. Then I showed the man at the desk my drivers’ license
to verify that I was the one in the documents and the man listed on the
check attached to this challenge for a formal debate behind closed doors. I
had him make photocopy of it and watch me cross the street to hand deliver
it to these folks:
I then walked across the park and up this hill:
I was willing to show any reporter or GOP guy an exact copy of what I had
just left behind at the Massachusetts Bar Association. All were to busy
with the affairs of the day to bother with the likes of me. A couple of the
tech guys had a look though likely cause I didn’t fit in with the crowd and I
was interested in their jobs. Likely they were just giving me the simple
courtesy of showing some interest in my affairs. They wished me luck.
Does anyone remember me? I was the one the one grinning like the fool old
Yorick was. Alas I never knew him at all nor did you care to know me.
Can ya tell I get around.
Methinks some may think me worth knowing.
Look for part two the next week.