Embed
Email

12-7-09-McDermott-Schmidt

Document Sample

Shared by: changcheng2
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
3
posted:
1/14/2012
language:
pages:
4
Mark Bell 46 Lindbergh Blvd, Westfield, MA 01085-3822

phone – 877-233-6090 fax - 781-394-0762 e-mail Mark-Bell@comcast.net



Mr. Patrick McDermott, Register,

Mr. Richard Schmidt, Assistant Register,

Norfolk Probate and Family Court

35 Shawmut Road, Canton, MA 02021

Re: 03D1651DV1



12/7/2009



Dear Mr. McDermott and Mr. Schmidt:



I’ve stated earlier that in my wildest dreams I could not imagine writing the story that has

surfaced from the “facts” of my case at the Norfolk Court.

In fact, I’ll restate that I’m not writing it, but only putting pen to paper about it.



Paperwork dated 11-23-09 was sent to me with written notice from First Justice Langlois

stating “Plaintiff’s complaint for contempt dated 11/9/09 will be heard on 12/16/09 provided service

is accomplished by no later than 12/6/09.” (Attached below.)



On December 30th I called the court to inquire about what appears to be a mixup on the date

the First Justice wrote, as the 11/9/09 document of his mention was not found in my records. Also

missing from the packet received was a summons, typical of what would be required for service.

I communicated with Lisa Vilk and Patrick McDermott regarding this, and both calls were

supportive and appeared as if not only due consideration was applied to my issue, but excellent

timeliness was present. I was sent via phone to Karen in the scheduling office, who agreed the good

First Justice’s date error was likely a transposition error, and in fact, she prepared a summons that

was put in the mail system, and would likely be sent out the next day, 12/1, as mail was picked up at

11am, and had already been picked up on this day.

I have not received anything, so, of course, the Judge’s order cannot be complied with, as the

service cannot be as mandated….

Where are we? In the same place this particular case keeps moving towards, by devices other

than that of my own, and those of, I believe, others; Very questionable/illegal practices.

Yes, perhaps it’s all anecdotal.

But, what happened between Karen’s mail, and my empty mailbox?

I am truly troubled by the “anecdotes” of overlooked, correctly-filed motions, documented as

such in the file itself, lost cassette tape requests, in which I refuse to believe Ms. Vilk is incompetent,

and other occurrences such as the early-March court date that was cancelled by the defendant

(Sheridan) without my knowledge, the information about which was not sent tome either. (Mr.

Schmidt showed me the “anecdotal evidence” of initials on a piece of paper that showed it had been

sent. It was never returned as first class mail to the courthouse after not being received by the

recipient….Commonweath v. Franco in Westfield District court says it would be.) I’m sure

somebody was amused that I drove to the court in a snowstorm that day in March.

And, coincidentally, from the first time a date was changed, after I told my then-lawyer Tom

Benner that “there is NO way Archie Keohane will allow a divorce “trial” to take place so close to

Christmas [2004],” there have been other date and scheduling issues. I believe Chief Justice Carey’s

office takes care of scheduling, and if memory serves me correctly, I believe she has even written

correspondence tome indicating such.

And, I also know that the “trial” scheduled in front of Judge Casey, a two day affair as

requested by Sheridan’s then-lawyer, Baresi, who was allowed to withdraw without naming

successor counsel against any MGL I am aware of that applies to such. It only worked to the

advantage of Sheridan. Unbelievable.

If I made this stuff up and wrote it, I’d fear of being called to face charges of defaming the

judiciary, the court, and employees such as Ms. Vilk, who I will maintain as competent, efficient and

courteous. Mr. McDermott and Karen? They certainly acted in concert with good faith…so who?



Attached to this letter is yet another claim that Clerk Archie Keohane’s family can walk into

a court, authorized as such, under rules to which the employees are supposed to adhere, and simply

defame the system in real-time, in session, under oath. Ms. Sheridan can openly lie to Judge Casey,

(“I don’t know how to fax documents.”) and in front of First Justice Langlois. (“[My bank won’t

accept a check [with name “or” name] without both signatures.]”) I am almost to believe the court is

acting in amusement, if not absolute bias favoring the abusive and connected Ms. Sheridan, who has

stacked up lies in courtrooms spanning Norfolk County, and is presently running a court-guided

intentional tort, against me, without sanction, to what must be the amusement of the court system of

which her family member, again, is employed. She knows what she is doing…do any laws matter?

Short of my finding out that some sort of direct action will be taken to find out why court

processes are being turned into violations of my rights to process, and directly finding out why Karen

would give out information that is false in the end, as it is assumed her actions were performed in

good faith, this matter needs to be elevated to people who will defend my rights and try to interpret

the currency involved in what should be very serious charges against the tampering that only benefits

a small group of people, yet hurts many. It also feeds into charges I feel are appropriate dealing with

the trafficking involving my daughter, who was involved in some manner in the fabrication of

evidence and false police reports in Plymouth County which I truly believe were coached and

assisted, if not directly performed, by her mother, Lynne Sheridan. Somebody, maybe more than just

one, has benefited by this tampering and injustice, hence, the trafficking.

This correspondence is being distributed as I feel will work to protect myself against the

absolutely repetitive violations that I feel, perhaps in my naiveté that laws apply to all, have occurred.

Those in higher offices should be asking at what level they will perform with regard to, at the very

least, within the ethics of their professions. Perjury may be the least of all the violations, and finding

out the beneficiaries of the crimes above should be paramount, at least in an honest system.

Without any sort of actions to find out the machinations of this very obvious confusion, and

who was involved, those involved are part of the crimes involved.

And that’s where I will leave this.





Sincerely Yours,







Mark Bell



Other docs by changcheng2
LabCalFall2011
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
tennessee
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Apr.5-11_KHS_PTSA_Email
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
EGG WASH SOLUTION
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
CPC_812
Views: 1  |  Downloads: 0
ENG_modules_1_3
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
TWONSHIP OF HOWELL
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
2011-10-26 - Minutes
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
DA_PROCESO_09-1-46629_102004000_1304150
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Application Form - Polercise
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!