Fair Notice: The Author is a Candidate for the Massachusetts Governor’s Council
The rules regarding being a judge in Massachusetts are very short. The second cannon of the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct states that a Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities. It also states that a judge should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The third cannon states that “A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”
This said, I was fortunate enough to be e-mailed a book by Mr. Kevin Thompson in PDF format, “Exposing the Corruption in Massachusetts Family Courts.” Mr. Kevin Thompson is a father’s rights activist who wrote about his tribulation in the Essex County Family Court. It would be an understatement to say that Mr. Thompson was not very kind to Judge Manzi. He stated, “She made it clear to me at my initial hearing on May 28, 2003, that in her courtroom fathers are all criminals to be punished and removed from the lives of their children while mothers are all selfless, innocent victims to be pitied and excused from accountability for their actions.” He added, “Judge Manzi and the incompetents who work in the court as mediators also introduced me to the family court mindset that a mother’s demand for sole custody is honorable and praiseworthy, but a father’s pursuit of a 50/50 joint physical custody compromise is proof that he is selfish, rigid, and demanding.” Mr. Thompson said, “Judge Manzi was consistently rude and condescending toward me at the initial hearing, but polite and patient with the attorney for my son’s mother. Before I was even called before the judge, I witnessed her rolling her eyes and asking the court clerk to point me out when she was handed my file.”
The criticism seriously questions Judge Manzi’s ethics, making claims that a tape-recording was edited, and that a Lawrence attorney could substantiate the statements were missing from the tape. In a bit of an irony, Kevin Thompson complains in his book, Judge Mainz should have recused herself for having personal bias.
Despite the book containing lengthy and scathing criticisms of the Judge Manzi, reliable statements made Mr. Thompson and Fathers and Families indicate that Judge Manzi ruled on whether to ban the book and, in fact, actually banned it.
Notes Attorney Del Gallo, “The law is quite clear. Judges cannot rule on cases where there is a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. What we have here is a conflict of interest on an acid trip. While completely trampling on the free speech rights of Mr. Thompson, a judge has banned a book that is scathingly critical of her. Apart from accepting an actual bribe or ruling on a case where a judge plainly has a financial interest in the outcome of a case, it is hard to imagine a more manifest conflict of interest.”
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III
Candidate for Governor’s Council
79 Nancy Avenue
Pittsfield, MA 01201
FOR MORE INFORMATION, call Mr. Del Gallo at 413-443-3150, or e-mail him at RDelGalloIII@aol.com
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
And Rightly So! » More Judicial Antics said,
July 11, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Denis said,
July 12, 2006 at 7:54 am
jsriolo said,
July 12, 2006 at 8:21 am
Roger Knight said,
July 12, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Denis said,
1.) live with an impossible situation.
2.) commit suicide
3.) go ballistic due to diminished capacity trying to live with an impossible situation.
If the system does not allow for the political process to work then violence is not only an expected outcome but a necessity. Our Founding Fathers understood this.
Banning a book?
In New Zealand the following is occuring:
Government Moves Against Men’s Rights Site & Priority News Exchange Member
——————————————————————————–
Government Moves Against Men’s Rights Site with “Extreme Prejudice”
(Stand Up and Fight or You May Be Next)
The next stage of the conflict with the feminist lead legal & government oligarchy has started in New Zealand. In an effort to suppress men’s rights the government has chosen to enforce “with extreme prejudice” its law prohibiting any criticism of court decisions. This has lead to even the UN making moves to not endorse at least one court case in New Zealand. This is the same Prime Minister Helen lead government that has not allowed a qualified lawyer applicant from receiving his license simply because he is a men’s rights activist.
(go to: http://forum.mathews.me.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=1342)
Now that women have some power they are changing the system and the way it works by suppressing any criticism against them. They are being totalitarian.
Try and follow where this will lead. Unless the system corrects itself, unless dissent is allowed, unless the political process works freely, not only will there be more violence, but the men who carry it out will be morally justified.
July 13, 2006 at 3:22 pm