Public Accusation Against a Criminal Network(s) in MA Court System
in Connection With a Chinese Intelligence Operative(s)
in Connection With a Chinese Intelligence Operative(s)
By Gang Xu, a MA resident and the victim
Two questions for the readers throughout this accusation:
- How easy to mobilize two courts to trash the established rule of law to target an innocent person for destruction, involving several court staff members?
- Who has that power or capability of controlling two MA courts to act against an innocent person in an operation that the involved clearly know it is a crime?
Before presenting his public accusation, Gang Xu first would like to thank Judges Benjamin C. Barnes and Cesar Archilla of the Malden District Court, for their integrity and candor during their hearing sessions.
The crimes in this public accusation unfolded around a supposedly simple divorce case between Gang Xu and his now-ex-wife (EXWIFE). The contested divorce however proved to be a disguise for a silencing operation that was aimed at manufacturing a criminal out of Gang Xu, to fully destroy his name and likely his physical existence, presumably to cover up China's long-term ambition to infiltrate U.S. army. Over the course of the divorce proceedings, Gang Xu had concluded that EXWIFE was neither aware of the consequences of some maneuvers in her name nor informed of some malicious setup and fabrications on her behalf, as she was disadvantaged in her English proficiency and limited in her understanding of American culture. He had settled the divorce case with EXWIFE so he could pursue those who had criminally violated him at the behest of a Chinese intelligence operative in China. (He had been prohibited from speaking to law enforcement about the case "during pendency of this case" under the temporary order of the family court.) He asks readers to respect EXWIFE’s privacy and not to cause any disturbance to her life. He will try his best to avoid referring to her unless deemed necessary for some factual statements in this accusation.
Gang Xu would also like to thank three attorneys in the Boston Chinese-American community, who were the first approached by EXWIFE. Apparently they had upheld their professional judgment. During her engagement with one of them, EXWIFE produced an email to Gang Xu that reviewed and preserved many truths about their marriage, contrary to the fabricated accusations on her behalf later.
Gang Xu will be referred to as VICTIM hereinafter. He will take the full responsibility for the content of this accusation.
The crimes in this public accusation unfolded around a supposedly simple divorce case between Gang Xu and his now-ex-wife (EXWIFE). The contested divorce however proved to be a disguise for a silencing operation that was aimed at manufacturing a criminal out of Gang Xu, to fully destroy his name and likely his physical existence, presumably to cover up China's long-term ambition to infiltrate U.S. army. Over the course of the divorce proceedings, Gang Xu had concluded that EXWIFE was neither aware of the consequences of some maneuvers in her name nor informed of some malicious setup and fabrications on her behalf, as she was disadvantaged in her English proficiency and limited in her understanding of American culture. He had settled the divorce case with EXWIFE so he could pursue those who had criminally violated him at the behest of a Chinese intelligence operative in China. (He had been prohibited from speaking to law enforcement about the case "during pendency of this case" under the temporary order of the family court.) He asks readers to respect EXWIFE’s privacy and not to cause any disturbance to her life. He will try his best to avoid referring to her unless deemed necessary for some factual statements in this accusation.
Gang Xu would also like to thank three attorneys in the Boston Chinese-American community, who were the first approached by EXWIFE. Apparently they had upheld their professional judgment. During her engagement with one of them, EXWIFE produced an email to Gang Xu that reviewed and preserved many truths about their marriage, contrary to the fabricated accusations on her behalf later.
Gang Xu will be referred to as VICTIM hereinafter. He will take the full responsibility for the content of this accusation.
1. The Nature of the Crimes
The crimes were remote-controlled and -monitored by a Chinese businesswoman in a small town on China-Vietnam border, whose another identity was a Chinese intelligence agent on Vietnam operation and who was connected to a Chinese spy primarily based in Houston but also active in LA. The crimes tried to exploit the loopholes in MA legal system, in administration of domestic violence law in particular, to frame VICTIM for a crime and to destroy his name, clearly in a silencing operation, presumably to cover up China's long-term ambition to infiltrate U.S. army. Two Massachusetts courts, several staff members involved, were mobilized in a well-coordinated manner, attempting to set up VICTIM for a crime, smear his name, or aid and abet the crimes. VICTIM is convinced that there is a criminal network in the MA court system that works with or under Chinese influence.
The crimes were remote-controlled and -monitored by a Chinese businesswoman in a small town on China-Vietnam border, whose another identity was a Chinese intelligence agent on Vietnam operation and who was connected to a Chinese spy primarily based in Houston but also active in LA. The crimes tried to exploit the loopholes in MA legal system, in administration of domestic violence law in particular, to frame VICTIM for a crime and to destroy his name, clearly in a silencing operation, presumably to cover up China's long-term ambition to infiltrate U.S. army. Two Massachusetts courts, several staff members involved, were mobilized in a well-coordinated manner, attempting to set up VICTIM for a crime, smear his name, or aid and abet the crimes. VICTIM is convinced that there is a criminal network in the MA court system that works with or under Chinese influence.
2. The Persons Who Have Criminally Violated Victim, Deliberately
Xiao Zheng (郑晓), the owner of the business Guangxi Xinhai Pharmaceutical Chainco, LTD, headquartered in the town Dongxing, China on China-Vietnam border and operating a branch in Móng Cái, Vietnam. Ms. Xiao Zheng is the second older sister of EXWIFE. In 2013 she revealed to VICTIM that she was also an intelligence operative posted on the border town and she connected to a Chinese spy in Houston/LA. She commanded and monitored the silencing operation against VICTIM. She had a 73-minute conference call with attorney Russell L. Chin on 05/24/2016, a week before the latter launched false accusations and another frame-up scheme against VICTIM.
Russell L. Chin, the attorney at Chin Law Firm, now at 400 Hancock Street, Quincy, MA 02171. Russell L. Chin was the attorney representing EXWIFE and her daughter (HER DAUGHTER). According to his own statements on his business website, Russell L. Chin “operates strategic partnership with China’s central government institutions and big law firms across China,” “served as the special adviser on international trade and investment for the government of Jiangsu Province, China,” and “held the Office of Financial Service Representative at Hong Kong Trade Development Council in 2000.” He is running a “China Strategy” program, a vehicle that apparently permits broad Sino-US business transactions. It is not clear if Russell L. Chin has registered as a foreign agent with the Department of Justice or not. Russell L. Chin also claims deep connection to the traditional Chinese American community, as his family had become rooted in America as early as in 1800's. Russell L. Chin devised and executed various crimes against VICTIM.
Maureen H. Monks, Justice at Middlesex County Probate and Family Court and the Judge presiding VICTIM’s divorce case. Over the divorce and its associated proceedings, among others, Judge Maureen H. Monks obstructed justice, conspired and defraud with Russell L. Chin, and operated a gang of judicial rogues who performed various despicable and unlawful jobs on her behalf, including, but not limited to, harassing and humiliating VICTIM, physically and verbally threatening VICTIM, linguistically intimidating VICTIM, and retaliating VICTIM by defamation. In return for his "services" to her, she rewarded her “hatchet man” Victor J. Tagliaferro with VICTIM's money and indulged him in embezzlement and misappropriation of VICTIM’s unused fund.
Victor J. Tagliaferro, attorney at Law at 92 Montvale Avenue, Suite 2600, Stoneham, MA. Victor J Tagliaferro was assigned by Judge Maureen H. Monks as the Discovery Master for the divorce; his real job turned out to be her bona fide “hatchet man,” to obstruct justice rather than to perform “neutral” services as it was claimed. He threatened VICTIM both physically and verbally, intimidated VICTIM linguistically, blocked discovery tactically, exploited VICTIM financially, and retaliated and defamed VICTIM documentarily.
Unidentified person(s) at Malden District Court, who aided Russell L. Chin in fixing a restraining order against VICTIM while keeping VICTIM totally unaware of such an order, in an attempt to frame VICTIM for criminal violation of the said order and imprison him. This person (s) later set up a hoax hearing to maintain the restraining order after VICTIM learned it from Middlesex County Probate and Family Court and went to Malden District Court to challenge the order. Malden District Court also resisted to reproducing a copy of a hearing tape, even upon VICTIM’s repeated requests, that recorded a critical early court hearing when VICTIM was excluded.
Unidentified person(s) at Middlesex County Probate and Family Court, who concealed the tape of VICTIM’s first court hearing there, making it unavailable to VICTIM for his defense in the subsequent proceedings and assisting Judge Maureen H. Monks to conspire and defraud with Russell L. Chin later on 12/08/2016. This person(s) also curtailed, precisely, the last fragment of another court hearing tape, despite specific instruction for the fragment by VICTIM in his cassette copy request form. The last fragment should record egregious abuse and harassment by one of Judge Maureen H. Monks’ assistant in the courtroom at the end of the hearing session on 10/05/2016.
The translator(s) employed by Russell L. Chin. According to EXWIFE during the deposition on 04/18/2017, Russell L. Chin doesn’t seem to read and speak Mandarin Chinese; EXWIFE and Xiao Zheng barely read and speak English beyond a few everyday vocabularies, unless aided by some translation software. Russell L. Chin’s translator(s) was directly and knowingly involved in various criminal acts against VICTIM, including, but not limited to, frame-up plots, falsification and perjuries. One of his translators was a pale and slender young woman who appeared at least three times in courts, in the same purple dress, on 11/15/2016, 12/08/2016, 05/05/2017, respectively.
Unidentified person(s), if there was, who coordinated the crimes against VICTIM behind the scenes in two MA courts, on behalf of Xiao Zheng or Chinese intelligence services, while Russell L. Chin acted as a front man.
Xiao Zheng (郑晓), the owner of the business Guangxi Xinhai Pharmaceutical Chainco, LTD, headquartered in the town Dongxing, China on China-Vietnam border and operating a branch in Móng Cái, Vietnam. Ms. Xiao Zheng is the second older sister of EXWIFE. In 2013 she revealed to VICTIM that she was also an intelligence operative posted on the border town and she connected to a Chinese spy in Houston/LA. She commanded and monitored the silencing operation against VICTIM. She had a 73-minute conference call with attorney Russell L. Chin on 05/24/2016, a week before the latter launched false accusations and another frame-up scheme against VICTIM.
Russell L. Chin, the attorney at Chin Law Firm, now at 400 Hancock Street, Quincy, MA 02171. Russell L. Chin was the attorney representing EXWIFE and her daughter (HER DAUGHTER). According to his own statements on his business website, Russell L. Chin “operates strategic partnership with China’s central government institutions and big law firms across China,” “served as the special adviser on international trade and investment for the government of Jiangsu Province, China,” and “held the Office of Financial Service Representative at Hong Kong Trade Development Council in 2000.” He is running a “China Strategy” program, a vehicle that apparently permits broad Sino-US business transactions. It is not clear if Russell L. Chin has registered as a foreign agent with the Department of Justice or not. Russell L. Chin also claims deep connection to the traditional Chinese American community, as his family had become rooted in America as early as in 1800's. Russell L. Chin devised and executed various crimes against VICTIM.
Maureen H. Monks, Justice at Middlesex County Probate and Family Court and the Judge presiding VICTIM’s divorce case. Over the divorce and its associated proceedings, among others, Judge Maureen H. Monks obstructed justice, conspired and defraud with Russell L. Chin, and operated a gang of judicial rogues who performed various despicable and unlawful jobs on her behalf, including, but not limited to, harassing and humiliating VICTIM, physically and verbally threatening VICTIM, linguistically intimidating VICTIM, and retaliating VICTIM by defamation. In return for his "services" to her, she rewarded her “hatchet man” Victor J. Tagliaferro with VICTIM's money and indulged him in embezzlement and misappropriation of VICTIM’s unused fund.
Victor J. Tagliaferro, attorney at Law at 92 Montvale Avenue, Suite 2600, Stoneham, MA. Victor J Tagliaferro was assigned by Judge Maureen H. Monks as the Discovery Master for the divorce; his real job turned out to be her bona fide “hatchet man,” to obstruct justice rather than to perform “neutral” services as it was claimed. He threatened VICTIM both physically and verbally, intimidated VICTIM linguistically, blocked discovery tactically, exploited VICTIM financially, and retaliated and defamed VICTIM documentarily.
Unidentified person(s) at Malden District Court, who aided Russell L. Chin in fixing a restraining order against VICTIM while keeping VICTIM totally unaware of such an order, in an attempt to frame VICTIM for criminal violation of the said order and imprison him. This person (s) later set up a hoax hearing to maintain the restraining order after VICTIM learned it from Middlesex County Probate and Family Court and went to Malden District Court to challenge the order. Malden District Court also resisted to reproducing a copy of a hearing tape, even upon VICTIM’s repeated requests, that recorded a critical early court hearing when VICTIM was excluded.
Unidentified person(s) at Middlesex County Probate and Family Court, who concealed the tape of VICTIM’s first court hearing there, making it unavailable to VICTIM for his defense in the subsequent proceedings and assisting Judge Maureen H. Monks to conspire and defraud with Russell L. Chin later on 12/08/2016. This person(s) also curtailed, precisely, the last fragment of another court hearing tape, despite specific instruction for the fragment by VICTIM in his cassette copy request form. The last fragment should record egregious abuse and harassment by one of Judge Maureen H. Monks’ assistant in the courtroom at the end of the hearing session on 10/05/2016.
The translator(s) employed by Russell L. Chin. According to EXWIFE during the deposition on 04/18/2017, Russell L. Chin doesn’t seem to read and speak Mandarin Chinese; EXWIFE and Xiao Zheng barely read and speak English beyond a few everyday vocabularies, unless aided by some translation software. Russell L. Chin’s translator(s) was directly and knowingly involved in various criminal acts against VICTIM, including, but not limited to, frame-up plots, falsification and perjuries. One of his translators was a pale and slender young woman who appeared at least three times in courts, in the same purple dress, on 11/15/2016, 12/08/2016, 05/05/2017, respectively.
Unidentified person(s), if there was, who coordinated the crimes against VICTIM behind the scenes in two MA courts, on behalf of Xiao Zheng or Chinese intelligence services, while Russell L. Chin acted as a front man.
3. Public Nature of This Accusation
Now, therefore VICTIM is making this criminal accusation public.
- Given that Judge Maureen H. Monks is deeply entrenched and protected in MA, as evidenced by her survival over serious controversies such as alleged resume falsification for her judicial appointment in 2008 and gender-based discrimination against fathers in awarding custody, as shown in a study of over 1000 cases she had presided from 2009 to 2011;
- Given that Mr. Russell L. Chin is well-connected to top U.S. and MA politicians, as evidenced by his “accompanying former U.S. President Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary to China,” “accompanying former U.S. Senate Kerry to China,” and “accompanying MA Governor Cellucci to China,” as quoted and translated verbatim from his law firm website;
- Given that a Chinese intelligence agent in a small town in China is capable of remote-paralyzing one MA court and efficiently controlling another, having demonstrated Chinese influence over the U.S. judicial system, a concern recognized as China's Long Arm by congressmen and chiefs of US intelligence community;
- Given that a central figure in all this likely represents China’s long-term ambition to plant and cultivate its influence and intelligence capability in the top of U.S. military services;
- Given that VICTIM’s experience manifests systemic collapse in MA judicial administration and blatant disregard for rule of law by MA court staff members, suggesting the existence of an organized criminal industry within MA court system, a formidable threat to general public;
- Given that VICTIM has been living in fear of being murdered, being set up again for a crime, or being framed in a civil liability lawsuit that merely serves to consume him—by people in the criminal industry in MA judicial community and/or by Chinese espionage operation—and public awareness could serve as a deterrent to such plots against him.
Now, therefore VICTIM is making this criminal accusation public.
4. Background and the Timeline of Major Events
For readers who are proficient in Chinese, VICTIM would like to ask them to click the following link for one of his blog pieces that was posted on multiple sites on 9/9/2015. The piece was seen reposted by some readers on other sites.
我和美国野鸡中学校长过招（上） (My Hand Game with a Headmaster of a Wild-Chicken School—1)
In this piece, VICTIM told a story of a Chinese mother who brought HER DAUGHTER to attend the inaugural class of a private boarding high school in Boston but made up her mind to transfer HER DAUGHTER out on the first school day. In the story he did not mention a woman who is a major figure in this accusation: the second older sister of the mother. She was with the mother and HER DAUGHTER on their first day to report to school. Accompanying them was a mysterious Chinese American, who was described by VICTIM in the story as “This friend was of deep background; he was very senior in his circle. If you see him on the street, first, you would never realize his background; second, you would never remember his looks after brushing past him.” This man suggested the family to transfer HER DAUGHTER out and offered some initial arrangement for the mother to stay in Boston to help with the transfer application. That was fall 2012.
In December 2014, VICTIM and the mother married.
Earlier in May 2013, VICTIM visited her sister in a China-Vietnam border town. In that visit, her sister revealed that she was a Chinese intelligence operative posted on the border. And the Chinese American who had accompanied them in their first school day visit in Boston in fall 2012 was a Chinese spy, on Ministry of State Security specifically.
It is interesting that the school HER DAUGHTER initially came to attend turned out to be highly enriched with students from Vietnam elite families, unique among New England private boarding schools.
In early 2014, VICTIM learned that EXWIFE’s mother is a veteran in the precursor of Chinese intelligence services, once tending and monitoring Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama when Chinese communist army occupied the Tibet in 1950’s.
In the Christmas Holiday season in 2014, HER DAUGHTER revealed that her passion was to join the U.S. army. She contacted the West Point regarding her eligibility for the college in early January 2015.
On 10/16/2015, VICTIM realized that something was terribly wrong with his marriage. He made his decision to divorce and emailed EXWIFE about his decision. To avoid any emotional reaction, he soon left home and came back only about once a week, usually on the late night of Friday.
On 11/02/2015, EXWIFE sent VICTIM an email, reviewing their marriage. Commenting on his blog writings, she characterized his pieces as “objective, truthful, and positive.”
In May 2016, he urged EXWIFE to finish the divorce process.
On 05/30/2016, her attorney Russell L. Chin emailed VICTIM a settlement proposal, threatening to sue VICTIM if VICTIM did not accept his proposal within one week. One of the conditions in his proposal is “Husband shall not communicate with any third party concerning or relating the Wife or the Wife's daughter.”
In 06/01/2016, Russell L. Chin filed the divorce complaint first at Middlesex County Probate and Family Court, falsely accusing VICTIM of many wrongdoings, including domestic abuse.
In June and July 2016, Malden District Courts secretly issued and extended an Ex Parte restraining order against VICTIM on behalf of EXWIFE, keeping VICTIM totally unaware of it.
On or about 6/22/2016, VICTIM’s office was intruded by an unexpected and suspicious young man who spoke English with a strong Boston Chinatown accent and introduced himself as an immigrant from China through family reunification.
In early August 2016, after he moved out Malden City, VICTIM ran into an incident, suggesting that he was followed by an Asian-looking woman when he left office for home in the evening.
Sensing something unusual, VICTIM submitted to the Middlesex County Probate and Family Court an unusual divorce counterclaim, 21 pages long and single-spaced, detailing his interactions with EXWIFE and her family, as a written document for law enforcement in case that he was found dead abnormally. He submitted the document to the court twice, on 08/16/2016 and 08/17/2017, respectively.
On 08/17/2016 in Middlesex County Probate and Family Court Room 7, before the first hearing in the morning, Russell L. Chin filed a complaint for abuse prevention on behalf of HER DAUGHTER, against VICTIM, mainly based on an email written in Chinese. It was learned later that earlier on 06/06/2016, they had filed a complaint at Malden District Court but withdrawn for inappropriate venue. Judge Maureen H. Monks granted a restraining order to HER DAUGHTER in the absence of an independent interpreter to verify the allegation. The judge ordered an interpreter for the 12/08/2016 extension hearing, promising to revisit the allegation.
On 08/17/2016 in Middlesex County Probate and Family Court Room 7, Judge Maureen H. Monks also issued a temporary order, prohibiting VICTIM to contact law enforcement about the case.
On 12/08/2016 at Middlesex County Probate and Family Court, Judge Maureen H. Monks conspired with Russell L. Chin and blocked the promised revisit to HER DAUGHTER’s allegation, even though the interpreter she had ordered showed up.
After the 12/08/2016 hearing at Middlesex County Probate and Family Court, it became very clear that several court staff members at both Middlesex County Probate and Family Court and Malden District Court were proactively manipulating the cases against VICTIM, in a highly coordinated manner.
On or about 12/10/2016, VICTIM found out that a year earlier in December 2015 he had survived a setup that would have sent him to jail for domestic violence. VICTIM had since lived a semi-hiding life, changing his daily routine constantly. On 12/23/2016, he booked a flight to Taipei.
On 01/23/2017, VICTIM fled to Taipei in an attempt to seek a temporary asylum and make public accusations against those who had criminally violated him in MA judicial community. But he had to come back three weeks later, as Taiwan did not grant asylum.
On 05/05/2017, VICTIM settled with EXWIFE on divorce after he confirmed his instinct on 04/18/2017 that EXWIFE was not consciously involved in various schemes that aimed at finishing his life.
HER DAUGHTER, who had spearheaded the accusations against VICTIM, is now enrolled in the MIT Army ROTC program.
For readers who are proficient in Chinese, VICTIM would like to ask them to click the following link for one of his blog pieces that was posted on multiple sites on 9/9/2015. The piece was seen reposted by some readers on other sites.
我和美国野鸡中学校长过招（上） (My Hand Game with a Headmaster of a Wild-Chicken School—1)
In this piece, VICTIM told a story of a Chinese mother who brought HER DAUGHTER to attend the inaugural class of a private boarding high school in Boston but made up her mind to transfer HER DAUGHTER out on the first school day. In the story he did not mention a woman who is a major figure in this accusation: the second older sister of the mother. She was with the mother and HER DAUGHTER on their first day to report to school. Accompanying them was a mysterious Chinese American, who was described by VICTIM in the story as “This friend was of deep background; he was very senior in his circle. If you see him on the street, first, you would never realize his background; second, you would never remember his looks after brushing past him.” This man suggested the family to transfer HER DAUGHTER out and offered some initial arrangement for the mother to stay in Boston to help with the transfer application. That was fall 2012.
In December 2014, VICTIM and the mother married.
Earlier in May 2013, VICTIM visited her sister in a China-Vietnam border town. In that visit, her sister revealed that she was a Chinese intelligence operative posted on the border. And the Chinese American who had accompanied them in their first school day visit in Boston in fall 2012 was a Chinese spy, on Ministry of State Security specifically.
It is interesting that the school HER DAUGHTER initially came to attend turned out to be highly enriched with students from Vietnam elite families, unique among New England private boarding schools.
In early 2014, VICTIM learned that EXWIFE’s mother is a veteran in the precursor of Chinese intelligence services, once tending and monitoring Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama when Chinese communist army occupied the Tibet in 1950’s.
In the Christmas Holiday season in 2014, HER DAUGHTER revealed that her passion was to join the U.S. army. She contacted the West Point regarding her eligibility for the college in early January 2015.
On 10/16/2015, VICTIM realized that something was terribly wrong with his marriage. He made his decision to divorce and emailed EXWIFE about his decision. To avoid any emotional reaction, he soon left home and came back only about once a week, usually on the late night of Friday.
On 11/02/2015, EXWIFE sent VICTIM an email, reviewing their marriage. Commenting on his blog writings, she characterized his pieces as “objective, truthful, and positive.”
In May 2016, he urged EXWIFE to finish the divorce process.
On 05/30/2016, her attorney Russell L. Chin emailed VICTIM a settlement proposal, threatening to sue VICTIM if VICTIM did not accept his proposal within one week. One of the conditions in his proposal is “Husband shall not communicate with any third party concerning or relating the Wife or the Wife's daughter.”
In 06/01/2016, Russell L. Chin filed the divorce complaint first at Middlesex County Probate and Family Court, falsely accusing VICTIM of many wrongdoings, including domestic abuse.
In June and July 2016, Malden District Courts secretly issued and extended an Ex Parte restraining order against VICTIM on behalf of EXWIFE, keeping VICTIM totally unaware of it.
On or about 6/22/2016, VICTIM’s office was intruded by an unexpected and suspicious young man who spoke English with a strong Boston Chinatown accent and introduced himself as an immigrant from China through family reunification.
In early August 2016, after he moved out Malden City, VICTIM ran into an incident, suggesting that he was followed by an Asian-looking woman when he left office for home in the evening.
Sensing something unusual, VICTIM submitted to the Middlesex County Probate and Family Court an unusual divorce counterclaim, 21 pages long and single-spaced, detailing his interactions with EXWIFE and her family, as a written document for law enforcement in case that he was found dead abnormally. He submitted the document to the court twice, on 08/16/2016 and 08/17/2017, respectively.
On 08/17/2016 in Middlesex County Probate and Family Court Room 7, before the first hearing in the morning, Russell L. Chin filed a complaint for abuse prevention on behalf of HER DAUGHTER, against VICTIM, mainly based on an email written in Chinese. It was learned later that earlier on 06/06/2016, they had filed a complaint at Malden District Court but withdrawn for inappropriate venue. Judge Maureen H. Monks granted a restraining order to HER DAUGHTER in the absence of an independent interpreter to verify the allegation. The judge ordered an interpreter for the 12/08/2016 extension hearing, promising to revisit the allegation.
On 08/17/2016 in Middlesex County Probate and Family Court Room 7, Judge Maureen H. Monks also issued a temporary order, prohibiting VICTIM to contact law enforcement about the case.
On 12/08/2016 at Middlesex County Probate and Family Court, Judge Maureen H. Monks conspired with Russell L. Chin and blocked the promised revisit to HER DAUGHTER’s allegation, even though the interpreter she had ordered showed up.
After the 12/08/2016 hearing at Middlesex County Probate and Family Court, it became very clear that several court staff members at both Middlesex County Probate and Family Court and Malden District Court were proactively manipulating the cases against VICTIM, in a highly coordinated manner.
On or about 12/10/2016, VICTIM found out that a year earlier in December 2015 he had survived a setup that would have sent him to jail for domestic violence. VICTIM had since lived a semi-hiding life, changing his daily routine constantly. On 12/23/2016, he booked a flight to Taipei.
On 01/23/2017, VICTIM fled to Taipei in an attempt to seek a temporary asylum and make public accusations against those who had criminally violated him in MA judicial community. But he had to come back three weeks later, as Taiwan did not grant asylum.
On 05/05/2017, VICTIM settled with EXWIFE on divorce after he confirmed his instinct on 04/18/2017 that EXWIFE was not consciously involved in various schemes that aimed at finishing his life.
HER DAUGHTER, who had spearheaded the accusations against VICTIM, is now enrolled in the MIT Army ROTC program.
5. Summary of the Criminal Violations against VICTIM
E5.1. The relationship among the accused parties. An unidentified party is likely, shown in black box outlined in pink:
E5.1. The relationship among the accused parties. An unidentified party is likely, shown in black box outlined in pink:
E5.2. Chronological summarization of the major criminal violations and events:
6. Specific Criminal Violations by Groups
6.1. Representative Violations by Russell L. Chin and His Associate(s), among Many Others
At least two people, Russell L. Chin and his Mandarin interpreter(s), are involved in numerous criminal violations against VICTIM.
6.1.1. Masterminding and managing a domestic violence setup to frame VICTIM, by Russell L. Chin and his interpreter. VICTIM on 10/16/2015 made his decision to divorce and emailed EXWIFE about his decision. To avoid any emotional reaction, he soon left home and came back only about once a week, usually on the late night of Friday, to do laundry and cooking the next morning. He did not return home in the second weekends of December 2015 (12/11/2015—12/13/2015). On the nights of the weekends, about the time when VICTIM was expected to return home, as well as in the mornings, disturbing loud noises were heard from his home by neighbors both on the same floor and the floor below, which were brought to the attention of the property management (PM). PM issued a notice, demanding that the tenant(s) see them to explain the incident on Monday 12/14/2015. On Wednesday 12/15/2015, PM sent VICTIM and EXWIFE an email, citing no response from the tenant(s) on Monday and demanding again that the tenant(s) see them on 12/16/2015. Later EXWIFE told VICTIM that she had already gone to the office just before the office was closed on 12/14/2015, apparently talking to a wrong person. On 12/17/2015, VICTIM went to the PM office to follow up. He was told that EXWIFE had seen her in the late afternoon a day earlier. When pressed for more details, the PM staffer told VICTIM that the noises sounded "like people are fighting in the room.”
The apartment building was installed with the security cameras for the hallways and major entrances.
A year later on or about 12/10/2016, VICTIM found out that EXWIFE called Russell L. Chin each time before she went to see PM on 12/14/2015 and 12/16/2015, indicating that the “domestic violence noise” was directed and managed by Russell L. Chin.
E6.1.1. A warning email from the landlord “regarding excessive noise and disturbance of the peace” produced in VICTIM and EXWIFE’s apartment, issued on 12/15/2015. The landlord demanded again that the tenant (s) see them to explain the incident on 12/16/2015:
6.1. Representative Violations by Russell L. Chin and His Associate(s), among Many Others
At least two people, Russell L. Chin and his Mandarin interpreter(s), are involved in numerous criminal violations against VICTIM.
6.1.1. Masterminding and managing a domestic violence setup to frame VICTIM, by Russell L. Chin and his interpreter. VICTIM on 10/16/2015 made his decision to divorce and emailed EXWIFE about his decision. To avoid any emotional reaction, he soon left home and came back only about once a week, usually on the late night of Friday, to do laundry and cooking the next morning. He did not return home in the second weekends of December 2015 (12/11/2015—12/13/2015). On the nights of the weekends, about the time when VICTIM was expected to return home, as well as in the mornings, disturbing loud noises were heard from his home by neighbors both on the same floor and the floor below, which were brought to the attention of the property management (PM). PM issued a notice, demanding that the tenant(s) see them to explain the incident on Monday 12/14/2015. On Wednesday 12/15/2015, PM sent VICTIM and EXWIFE an email, citing no response from the tenant(s) on Monday and demanding again that the tenant(s) see them on 12/16/2015. Later EXWIFE told VICTIM that she had already gone to the office just before the office was closed on 12/14/2015, apparently talking to a wrong person. On 12/17/2015, VICTIM went to the PM office to follow up. He was told that EXWIFE had seen her in the late afternoon a day earlier. When pressed for more details, the PM staffer told VICTIM that the noises sounded "like people are fighting in the room.”
The apartment building was installed with the security cameras for the hallways and major entrances.
A year later on or about 12/10/2016, VICTIM found out that EXWIFE called Russell L. Chin each time before she went to see PM on 12/14/2015 and 12/16/2015, indicating that the “domestic violence noise” was directed and managed by Russell L. Chin.
E6.1.1. A warning email from the landlord “regarding excessive noise and disturbance of the peace” produced in VICTIM and EXWIFE’s apartment, issued on 12/15/2015. The landlord demanded again that the tenant (s) see them to explain the incident on 12/16/2015:
6.1.2. Fixing Malden District Court and obtaining a restraining order secretly, attempting to frame VICTIM for criminal violation of the restraining order and falsely imprison VICTIM, by Russell L. Chin and an unidentified person(s) at Malden District Court. On 06/06/2016, on behalf of EXWIFE, Russell L. Chin at Malden District Court falsely accused VICTIM of “sent an email to me on 06/04/16, stating that he is thinking of killing my daughter and me.” He also filed a complaint on behalf of HER DAUGHTER but withdrew after the court determined that HER DAUGHTER was not going to be in Malden. He obtained an Ex Parte order for EXWIFE. For the subsequent hearing on 06/20/2016, Malden District Court neither had the Ex Parte order served on VICTIM nor sent him any notification. In the hearing on 06/20/2016, according to the hearing tape retrieved later, a court staffer alerted Judge Benjamin C. Barnes that VICTIM had not been notified of the hearing. The Judge rescheduled the hearing to 07/11/2016 and directed Russell L. Chin to provide VICTIM’s contact phone number to the Clerk’s office, allowing “service over the telephone if they [police] cannot locate him [VICTIM].” Russell L. Chin promised that “I will do that today.”
However, Malden District Court again did not have the Ex Parte order served on VICTIM, either by police or over telephone, even though in the 06/20/2016 hearing Russell L. Chin confirmed to the Judge that VICTIM was still residing at the same address in Malden and EXWIFE correctly reported to the court the first 3 digits of VICTIM's cell phone number—which were different from hers—before being stopped by the Judge. On 07/11/2016, Judge Michael Patten extended the Ex Parte order for six months, in spite of the rule—as specified in the Massachusetts Trial Court’s Guidelines for Judicial Practice: Abuse Prevention Proceedings (2011)--that “The court should require evidence of notice to the defendant before issuing an order for longer than ten court business days (page 11)” and “the Ex Parte orders should last…, in any event, no more than ‘ten court business days after the Ex Parte hearing (page 77).” On 11/01/2016, when questioned by VICTIM, a Malden District Court staffer told VICTIM that they did not have his phone number on file. VICTIM gave her his phone number and updated his address.
It is noted from the hearing tape that the staffer who assisted Judge Benjamin C. Barnes on 06/20/2016 was also present in the 06/06/2016 Ex Parte hearing; he was very familiar with the case and remembered the very details. Handwriting comparison on the case Docket Entries indicates that Judges Benjamin C. Barnes and Michael Patten were assisted by the same person on 06/20/2016 and 07/11/2016, who was likely present in the 06/06/2016 hearing as well.
E6.1.2. The Docket Entries for Gang Xu Case at Malden District Court, retrieved after the case was closed on 03/01/2017:
However, Malden District Court again did not have the Ex Parte order served on VICTIM, either by police or over telephone, even though in the 06/20/2016 hearing Russell L. Chin confirmed to the Judge that VICTIM was still residing at the same address in Malden and EXWIFE correctly reported to the court the first 3 digits of VICTIM's cell phone number—which were different from hers—before being stopped by the Judge. On 07/11/2016, Judge Michael Patten extended the Ex Parte order for six months, in spite of the rule—as specified in the Massachusetts Trial Court’s Guidelines for Judicial Practice: Abuse Prevention Proceedings (2011)--that “The court should require evidence of notice to the defendant before issuing an order for longer than ten court business days (page 11)” and “the Ex Parte orders should last…, in any event, no more than ‘ten court business days after the Ex Parte hearing (page 77).” On 11/01/2016, when questioned by VICTIM, a Malden District Court staffer told VICTIM that they did not have his phone number on file. VICTIM gave her his phone number and updated his address.
It is noted from the hearing tape that the staffer who assisted Judge Benjamin C. Barnes on 06/20/2016 was also present in the 06/06/2016 Ex Parte hearing; he was very familiar with the case and remembered the very details. Handwriting comparison on the case Docket Entries indicates that Judges Benjamin C. Barnes and Michael Patten were assisted by the same person on 06/20/2016 and 07/11/2016, who was likely present in the 06/06/2016 hearing as well.
E6.1.2. The Docket Entries for Gang Xu Case at Malden District Court, retrieved after the case was closed on 03/01/2017:
1) It is entered on 11/1/16 that “Service on order returned; Defendant served by Malden Court on 11/1/16 by RO clerk.” Thus, before 11/1/16, this section was unfilled, or Defendant was not served.
2) The Judge ruled “Telephone Service allowed” on the 6/20/16 hearing.
3) Same handwriting for “2nd Session @ xxx” on the 6/20/16 and 7/11/16 hearings, indicating presence of the same assistant on 6/20/16 and 7/11/16.
4) Same handwriting for "π (plaintiff) only w/” on the 6/6/16 and 7/11/16 hearings, indicating presence of the same assistant on 6/6/16 and 7/11/16.
5) The letter “i” in “2nd Session” in the 6/20/16 and 7/11/16 hearing entries shows the same calligraphic fingerprint as the letter “t” in “order Ext to 1-11-17” in the 7/11/16 hearing entry, suggesting “2nd Session" and "π (plaintiff) only w/” are the handwriting of the same person. Thus the same person was present in all the three hearings on 6/6/16, 6/20/16, and 7/11/16.
2) The Judge ruled “Telephone Service allowed” on the 6/20/16 hearing.
3) Same handwriting for “2nd Session @ xxx” on the 6/20/16 and 7/11/16 hearings, indicating presence of the same assistant on 6/20/16 and 7/11/16.
4) Same handwriting for "π (plaintiff) only w/” on the 6/6/16 and 7/11/16 hearings, indicating presence of the same assistant on 6/6/16 and 7/11/16.
5) The letter “i” in “2nd Session” in the 6/20/16 and 7/11/16 hearing entries shows the same calligraphic fingerprint as the letter “t” in “order Ext to 1-11-17” in the 7/11/16 hearing entry, suggesting “2nd Session" and "π (plaintiff) only w/” are the handwriting of the same person. Thus the same person was present in all the three hearings on 6/6/16, 6/20/16, and 7/11/16.
Given the nefarious nature of the false allegations filed against VICTIM at Malden District Court, the purposefulness in keeping VICTIM unaware of the restraining order against him in the summer when he was anxious to reach EXWIFE and her family to settle the divorce, and the desperateness of Russell L. Chin to grasp any slim opportunity to accuse VICTIM of criminal violation of an existing restraining order, as shown later in an incident in the other court, issuance and extension of the Ex Parte order without letting VICTIM know was a well calculated conspiracy, an ambush that tried to manufacture a criminal offender out of VICTIM. It exploited the following loophole in administration of MA domestic violence law, as indicated on pages 92-93 in Massachusetts Trial Court’s Guidelines for Judicial Practice: Abuse Prevention Proceedings (2011): “In a prosecution for a violation of a c. 209A order, actual service of the order is unnecessary if the Commonwealth can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had actual knowledge of the terms of the order. . . , Commonwealth v. Melton, 458 Mass. 1109 (2010) (where court found that a telephone conversation between the defendant and the victim, initiated by defendant, during which the victim asked the defendant why he was calling her and said “there’s a restraining order,” was sufficient for a jury to have found that the defendant was put on notice of the existence of a restraining order).”
6.1.3. Setting up another domestic abuse trap by Russell L. Chin in the conference with Discovery Master Victor J. Tagliaferro. On 11/22/2016, in the conference for discovery with Victor J. Tagliaferro, Russell L. Chin asked VICTIM to remove EXWIFE from his health insurance coverage, claiming that his health insurance plan was not good for her. VICTIM requested the formality. Russell L. Chin hand-wrote the request on a yellow legal pad and gave it to VICTIM. On 04/10/2017, in his court filing Statement of Compliance with Supplemental Rule 410 (Mandatory Self-Disclosure) on behalf of EXWIFE, Russell L. Chin accused VICTIM of cruel treatment of EXWIFE by removing her and HER DAUGHTER from his health insurance plan without their knowledge, leaving them “unknowingly and dangerously without any health insurance coverage for an unknown period of time.”
E6.1.3. Russell Chin asked VICTIM to remove EXWIFE from his health insurance plan on 11/22/2016 (left). He then accused VICTIM of cruel treatment of EXWIFE and HER DAUGHTER on 04/10/2017 (right).
6.1.3. Setting up another domestic abuse trap by Russell L. Chin in the conference with Discovery Master Victor J. Tagliaferro. On 11/22/2016, in the conference for discovery with Victor J. Tagliaferro, Russell L. Chin asked VICTIM to remove EXWIFE from his health insurance coverage, claiming that his health insurance plan was not good for her. VICTIM requested the formality. Russell L. Chin hand-wrote the request on a yellow legal pad and gave it to VICTIM. On 04/10/2017, in his court filing Statement of Compliance with Supplemental Rule 410 (Mandatory Self-Disclosure) on behalf of EXWIFE, Russell L. Chin accused VICTIM of cruel treatment of EXWIFE by removing her and HER DAUGHTER from his health insurance plan without their knowledge, leaving them “unknowingly and dangerously without any health insurance coverage for an unknown period of time.”
E6.1.3. Russell Chin asked VICTIM to remove EXWIFE from his health insurance plan on 11/22/2016 (left). He then accused VICTIM of cruel treatment of EXWIFE and HER DAUGHTER on 04/10/2017 (right).
6.1.4. Conspiring and defrauding with Judge Maureen H. Monks to maintain a restraining order against VICTIM by Russell L. Chin. On 08/17/2016, Judge Maureen H. Monks at Middlesex County Probate and Family Court granted a restraining order to HER DAUGHTER based on “her translation” of an email that VICTIM sent to her on 06/04/2016. The Judge acknowledged the dispute over the translation and ordered a Mandarin interpreter to “revisit” the email at the extension hearing on 12/08/2016. On 12/08/2016, in the presence of the interpreter she had ordered herself, faced with her own written annotation on the restraining order that clearly established the fact that the accusation was not verified independently, Judge Maureen H. Monks immediately picked up a fraudulent statement by Russell L. Chin, which she knew was fraudulent, and ruled to maintain the restraining order, producing a textbook illustration of a tacit conspiracy, in a courtroom and in public, using language stereotypical of corrupt public officials worldwide, to obstruct justice and defraud.
Hearing tapes in review for editing and release, pending approval.
E6.1.4. Restraining order issued by Judge Maureen H. Monks against VICTIM on 8/17/2016, noted by the Judge as "based on her translation of the email" (boxed and underlined in red at the bottom of page 1). The Judge promised to "revisit" the allegation and directed that "a Mandarin interpreter shall be ordered" (boxed in red on page 2).
6.1.5. Conspiring with Judge Maureen H. Monks to retaliate VICTIM in a low and nefarious manner by Russell L. Chin. Since the first hearing on the divorce on 08/17/2016, Judge Maureen H. Monks had been indulging Russell L. Chin in fraud and fabrication. In the EXWIFE’s Financial Statement that he filled and submitted, Russell L. Chin claimed under penalty of perjury that EXWIFE had no bank account and did not pay him any retainer, forcing VICTIM to subpoena her Bank of America statements and other documents, which in turn led to appointment of Discovery Master Victor J. Tagliaferro to oversee the discovery. Russell L. Chin then harassed VICTIM, repeatedly, by requesting the latter to produce numerous documents that fell into 45 categories, many of which were outrageously unreasonable and irrelevant. VICTIM referred the request to Victor J. Tagliaferro for discussion in the meeting. In the conference on 11/22/2016, Victor J. Tagliaferro sabotaged VICTIM’s discovery effort and apparently totally ignored Chin’s request. In the 03/13/2017 hearing, Judge Maureen H. Monks blamed VICTIM to defend Victor J. Tagliaferro and Russell L. Chin, “if you did not comply yourself, the rule prevents you from seeking a motion to compel anyway,” referring to VICTIM's challenge to Victor J. Tagliaferro's report that denied VICTIM's right to mandatory disclosure. While Judge Maureen H. Monks had to yield to MA mandatory disclosure law, in retaliation, she ordered VICTIM to go to Russell L. Chin’s law office at Quincy, physically, to exchange the bank statements, unnecessary, uncomfortable, and distant from VICTIM’s residence, for the sole purpose of fatiguing and humiliating VICTIM into compliance with her measures of rigging justice.* On 04/10/2017, after VICTIM drove more than two hours across the entire Boston City diagonally through afternoon traffic jam and arrived at Russell L. Chin’s law office at Quincy—bringing with him all the statements of his different bank accounts—Russell L. Chin refused to produce EXWIFE’s Bank of America statements; he handed VICTIM a thick envelope that turned out to contain prints of statements of a joint bank account for VICTIM and EXWIFE, to which VICTIM had 100% online access.
* Acknowledgement to the authors of The Declaration of Independence, from which this statement is adapted.
* Acknowledgement to the authors of The Declaration of Independence, from which this statement is adapted.
6.2. Violations by Malden District Court
At least one person, to be identified, is involved.
6.2.1. Aiding Russell L. Chin in stealthily setting up an ambush in an attempt to falsely incriminate VICTIM. On 06/06/2016, on behalf of EXWIFE, Russell L. Chin at Malden District Court falsely accused VICTIM of “sent an email to me on 06/04/16, stating that he is thinking of killing my daughter and me.” He also filed a complaint on behalf of HER DAUGHTER but withdrew after the court determined that HER DAUGHTER was not going to be in Malden. He obtained an Ex Parte order for EXWIFE. For the coming hearing on 06/20/2016, Malden District Court neither had the Ex Parte order served on VICTIM nor sent him any notification. In the hearing on 06/20/2016, according to the hearing tape retrieved later, a court staffer alerted Judge Benjamin C. Barnes that VICTIM had not been notified of the hearing. The Judge rescheduled the hearing to 07/11/2016 and directed Russell L. Chin to provide VICTIM’s contact phone number to the Clerk’s office, allowing “service over the telephone if they [police] cannot locate him [VICTIM].” Russell L. Chin promised that “I will do that today.”
However, Malden District Court again did not have the Ex Parte order served on VICTIM, either by police or over telephone, even though in the 06/20/2016 hearing Russell L. Chin confirmed to the Judge that VICTIM was still residing at the same address in Malden and EXWIFE correctly reported to the court the first 3 digits of VICTIM's cell phone number--which were different from hers--before being stopped by the Judge. On 07/11/2016, Judge Michael Patten extended the Ex Parte order for six months, in spite of the rule—as specified in the Massachusetts Trial Court’s Guidelines for Judicial Practice: Abuse Prevention Proceedings (2011)—that “The court should require evidence of notice to the defendant before issuing an order for longer than ten court business days (page 11)” and “the Ex Parte orders should last…, in any event, no more than ‘ten court business days after the Ex Parte hearing (page 77).” On 11/01/2016, when questioned by VICTIM, a Malden District Court staffer told VICTIM that they did not have his phone number on file. VICTIM gave her his phone number and updated his address.
It is noted from the hearing tape that the staffer who assisted Judge Benjamin C. Barnes on 06/20/2016 was also present in the 06/06/2016 Ex Parte hearing; he was very familiar with the case and remembered the very details. Handwriting comparison on the case Docket Entries indicates that Judges Benjamin C. Barnes and Michael Patten were assisted by the same person on 06/20/2016 and 07/11/2016, who was likely present in the 06/06/2016 hearing as well.
E6.2.1. The Docket Entries for Gang Xu Case at Malden District Court, retrieved after the case was closed on 03/01/2017:
At least one person, to be identified, is involved.
6.2.1. Aiding Russell L. Chin in stealthily setting up an ambush in an attempt to falsely incriminate VICTIM. On 06/06/2016, on behalf of EXWIFE, Russell L. Chin at Malden District Court falsely accused VICTIM of “sent an email to me on 06/04/16, stating that he is thinking of killing my daughter and me.” He also filed a complaint on behalf of HER DAUGHTER but withdrew after the court determined that HER DAUGHTER was not going to be in Malden. He obtained an Ex Parte order for EXWIFE. For the coming hearing on 06/20/2016, Malden District Court neither had the Ex Parte order served on VICTIM nor sent him any notification. In the hearing on 06/20/2016, according to the hearing tape retrieved later, a court staffer alerted Judge Benjamin C. Barnes that VICTIM had not been notified of the hearing. The Judge rescheduled the hearing to 07/11/2016 and directed Russell L. Chin to provide VICTIM’s contact phone number to the Clerk’s office, allowing “service over the telephone if they [police] cannot locate him [VICTIM].” Russell L. Chin promised that “I will do that today.”
However, Malden District Court again did not have the Ex Parte order served on VICTIM, either by police or over telephone, even though in the 06/20/2016 hearing Russell L. Chin confirmed to the Judge that VICTIM was still residing at the same address in Malden and EXWIFE correctly reported to the court the first 3 digits of VICTIM's cell phone number--which were different from hers--before being stopped by the Judge. On 07/11/2016, Judge Michael Patten extended the Ex Parte order for six months, in spite of the rule—as specified in the Massachusetts Trial Court’s Guidelines for Judicial Practice: Abuse Prevention Proceedings (2011)—that “The court should require evidence of notice to the defendant before issuing an order for longer than ten court business days (page 11)” and “the Ex Parte orders should last…, in any event, no more than ‘ten court business days after the Ex Parte hearing (page 77).” On 11/01/2016, when questioned by VICTIM, a Malden District Court staffer told VICTIM that they did not have his phone number on file. VICTIM gave her his phone number and updated his address.
It is noted from the hearing tape that the staffer who assisted Judge Benjamin C. Barnes on 06/20/2016 was also present in the 06/06/2016 Ex Parte hearing; he was very familiar with the case and remembered the very details. Handwriting comparison on the case Docket Entries indicates that Judges Benjamin C. Barnes and Michael Patten were assisted by the same person on 06/20/2016 and 07/11/2016, who was likely present in the 06/06/2016 hearing as well.
E6.2.1. The Docket Entries for Gang Xu Case at Malden District Court, retrieved after the case was closed on 03/01/2017:
1) It is entered on 11/1/16 that “Service on order returned; Defendant served by Malden Court on 11/1/16 by RO clerk.” Thus, before 11/1/16, this section was unfilled, or Defendant was not served.
2) The Judge ruled “Telephone Service allowed” on the 6/20/16 hearing.
3) Same handwriting for “2nd Session @ xxx” on the 6/20/16 and 7/11/16 hearings, indicating presence of the same assistant on 6/20/16 and 7/11/16.
4) Same handwriting for "π (plaintiff) only w/” on the 6/6/16 and 7/11/16 hearings, indicating presence of the same assistant on 6/6/16 and 7/11/16.
5) The letter “i” in “2nd Session” in the 6/20/16 and 7/11/16 hearing entries shows the same calligraphic fingerprint as the letter “t” in “order Ext to 1-11-17” in the 7/11/16 hearing entry, suggesting “2nd Session" and "π (plaintiff) only w/” are the handwriting of the same person. Thus the same person was present in all the three hearings on 6/6/16, 6/20/16, and 7/11/16.
2) The Judge ruled “Telephone Service allowed” on the 6/20/16 hearing.
3) Same handwriting for “2nd Session @ xxx” on the 6/20/16 and 7/11/16 hearings, indicating presence of the same assistant on 6/20/16 and 7/11/16.
4) Same handwriting for "π (plaintiff) only w/” on the 6/6/16 and 7/11/16 hearings, indicating presence of the same assistant on 6/6/16 and 7/11/16.
5) The letter “i” in “2nd Session” in the 6/20/16 and 7/11/16 hearing entries shows the same calligraphic fingerprint as the letter “t” in “order Ext to 1-11-17” in the 7/11/16 hearing entry, suggesting “2nd Session" and "π (plaintiff) only w/” are the handwriting of the same person. Thus the same person was present in all the three hearings on 6/6/16, 6/20/16, and 7/11/16.
Given the nefarious nature of the false allegations filed against VICTIM at Malden District Court, the purposefulness in keeping VICTIM unaware of the restraining order against VICTIM in the summer when VICTIM was anxious to reach EXWIFE and her family to settle the divorce, and the desperateness of Russell L. Chin to grasp any slim opportunity to accuse VICTIM of criminal violation of a restraining order, as shown later in an incident in the other court, issuance and extension of the Ex Parte order without letting VICTIM know was a well calculated conspiracy, an ambush that tried to manufacture a criminal offender out of VICTIM. It exploited the following loophole in administration of MA domestic violence law, as indicated on pages 92-93 in Massachusetts Trial Court’s Guidelines for Judicial Practice: Abuse Prevention Proceedings (2011): “In a prosecution for a violation of a c. 209A order, actual service of the order is unnecessary if the Commonwealth can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had actual knowledge of the terms of the order. . . , Commonwealth v. Melton, 458 Mass. 1109 (2010) (where court found that a telephone conversation between the defendant and the victim, initiated by defendant, during which the victim asked the defendant why he was calling her and said “there’s a restraining order,” was sufficient for a jury to have found that the defendant was put on notice of the existence of a restraining order).”
6.2.2. Arranging a hoax hearing to deny VICTIM’s right. On 11/1/2016, VICTIM went to Malden District Court to find out what was there against him exactly. He filed a motion to challenge the restraining order against him. About one week before the 11/15/2016 hearing day, he went to Malden District Court again, asking the court to order a Mandarin interpreter for EXWIFE. He was received by a very fit and decent young man who wore a creamy dress shirt. When asked who would be the judge for his hearing, the clerk checked into something in his case folder and told him that the judge would be Michael Pattern.
During the hearing on 11/15/2016, with the aid of a court-appointed interpreter, EXWIFE stated that she had never accused VICTIM of having said “thinking of killing my daughter and me” exactly. When examined on another allegation, her answer again contradicted the written statement on the Affidavit in her name. Judge William Fitzpatrick wrapped up the hearing and blocked the examination of VICTIM’s 06/04/2016 email, upon which the accusation was mainly based and for which the court-ordered Mandarin interpreter was standing by. Judge William Fitzpatrick maintained the restraining order but hinted that one reason for his decision was that the restraining order was issued by Michael Pattern, a different judge, or "the court is taking note of the fact that the restraining order was issued by Judge Pattern of this court." In the hearing on 01/11/2017 at Malden District Court, Judge Cesar Archilla made a frank comment specifically on that, “But you want a different result from a different judge. That is not going to happen.” The 11/15/2016 hearing was a hoax setup from the very beginning.
6.2.3. Resisting to reproducing a copy of the tape for the 06/20/2016 court hearing. For three weeks from 02/23/2018 on, VICTIM experienced unusual resistance from Malden District Court to his effort to retrieve a copy of the tape for the 06/20/2016 court hearing, which turned out to be critical to understanding the role of Malden District Court in issuing and extending the Ex Parte order to EXWIFE without VICTIM’s awareness. In the two previous orders, VICTIM received the tape copies within a week. For this particular one, he had to fax a written request for the record.
E6.2.3. The follow-up fax regarding VICTIM's request for a copy of the 06/20/2016 hearing tape.
6.2.2. Arranging a hoax hearing to deny VICTIM’s right. On 11/1/2016, VICTIM went to Malden District Court to find out what was there against him exactly. He filed a motion to challenge the restraining order against him. About one week before the 11/15/2016 hearing day, he went to Malden District Court again, asking the court to order a Mandarin interpreter for EXWIFE. He was received by a very fit and decent young man who wore a creamy dress shirt. When asked who would be the judge for his hearing, the clerk checked into something in his case folder and told him that the judge would be Michael Pattern.
During the hearing on 11/15/2016, with the aid of a court-appointed interpreter, EXWIFE stated that she had never accused VICTIM of having said “thinking of killing my daughter and me” exactly. When examined on another allegation, her answer again contradicted the written statement on the Affidavit in her name. Judge William Fitzpatrick wrapped up the hearing and blocked the examination of VICTIM’s 06/04/2016 email, upon which the accusation was mainly based and for which the court-ordered Mandarin interpreter was standing by. Judge William Fitzpatrick maintained the restraining order but hinted that one reason for his decision was that the restraining order was issued by Michael Pattern, a different judge, or "the court is taking note of the fact that the restraining order was issued by Judge Pattern of this court." In the hearing on 01/11/2017 at Malden District Court, Judge Cesar Archilla made a frank comment specifically on that, “But you want a different result from a different judge. That is not going to happen.” The 11/15/2016 hearing was a hoax setup from the very beginning.
6.2.3. Resisting to reproducing a copy of the tape for the 06/20/2016 court hearing. For three weeks from 02/23/2018 on, VICTIM experienced unusual resistance from Malden District Court to his effort to retrieve a copy of the tape for the 06/20/2016 court hearing, which turned out to be critical to understanding the role of Malden District Court in issuing and extending the Ex Parte order to EXWIFE without VICTIM’s awareness. In the two previous orders, VICTIM received the tape copies within a week. For this particular one, he had to fax a written request for the record.
E6.2.3. The follow-up fax regarding VICTIM's request for a copy of the 06/20/2016 hearing tape.
6.3. Representative Violations by Judge Maureen H. Monks and Her Gang of Judicial Rogues at Middlesex County Probate and Family Court
At least four people, Judge Maureen H. Monks, Victor J. Tagliaferro, an unidentified person (s), and Lisa, are involved in various violations against VICTIM.
At least four people, Judge Maureen H. Monks, Victor J. Tagliaferro, an unidentified person (s), and Lisa, are involved in various violations against VICTIM.
|
|
VICTIM grew up in Zhejiang Province, China and received his college education in Shanghai. Although his last three years in China (1988—1991) were filled with uncertainty, anxiety and fear about his future, he was lucky living in a region better-developed and quite civilized in China. In his childhood and youth years, he heard many stories of blatant abuses by Chinese communist rogues in rural areas, especially in the Cultural Revolution, but he had never experienced any such thing himself. During his legal proceedings at Middlesex County Probate and Family Court, however, he was treated by Judge Maureen H. Monks and her gang of judicial rogues, in a figurative expression, just like this village woman was beaten by Chinese urban para-cops in the video, again and again.
|
6.3.1. No respect for truth and impartiality. Overall Judge Maureen H. Monks was a very manipulative and deceitful mind who had no respect for truth and impartiality. For example, on 08/17/2016, reminded by VICTIM three times that EXWIFE and her attorney had committed perjury under oath, as clearly illustrated by their filings on Financial Statement Form, and thus had no credibility in the court, Judge Maureen H. Monks still awarded temporary order against VICTIM based on fraudulent allegations and prohibited VICTIM from speaking to law enforcement about the case, even though she was informed by VICTIM under oath that the case likely involved Chinese espionage operation and college admission misconduct.
On the contrary, Judge Cesar Archilla at Malden District Court immediately saw the problem when VICTIM on 01/11/2017 showed him EXWIFE's Financial Statement that was filled and submitted by Russell L. Chin. He ruled to have a full hearing in the coming extension hearing that he would preside over, in spite of the false claim that a full hearing had been done; he instructed VICTIM to bring everything he could that would show the credibility of the other party. The restraining order against VICTIM at Malden District Court expired after Russell L. Chin and EXWIFE failed to show up in the extension hearing on 03/01/2017.
6.3.2. Harassing and humiliating VICTIM by Judge Maureen H. Monks’ assistant Lisa. On 10/05/2016, Judge Maureen H. Monks blocked VICTIM’s effort to subpoena documents to defend his name and rights against false accusations and frauds. She ruled to appoint a Discovery Master to oversee the discovery and, as a penalty against VICTIM, she ordered VICTIM to pay the initial retainer to Discovery Master.
At the end of the 10/05/2016 hearing, Judge Maureen H. Monks wanted to return the counterclaim exhibits to VICTIM. She asked one of her assistants Lisa, who was sitting in the front row of the well and facing both parties, to pass along the exhibits to VICTIM. When VICTIM bent over to take the exhibits, Lisa made a stunning move to deliberately humiliate him: out of the blue, she hit the bench with her fingertip and ordered VICTIM to round the other party to her right side to pick up the exhibits. Clearly Lisa had sensed Judge’s hostility against VICTIM and acted to entertain her boss, a typical workplace nasty show. But she was so mean and so rude that even Judge Maureen H. Monks could not help but, out of instinct, stop her from further verbal abuse. When VICTIM was rounding the other party to her right, Lisa’s eyes glistened with burning excitement and joy and her face radiated a wisp of cold sinister smile, like a predator was calculating and playing its prey before delivering a lethal bite. When VICTIM looked further up , Judge Monks turned her head away and looked up into the window, trying to contain her amusement and pretending nothing had ever happened.
6.3.3. Concealing and tampering with evidence by an unidentified court staffer(s) to assist Maureen H. Monks’ criminal conspiracy with Russell L. Chin on 12/08/2016 and to block VICTIM from complaining or appealing. On 10/25/2016, VICTIM requested for a copy of each of the 08/17/2016 and 10/05/2016 court hearing tapes, to prepare for his future hearings and complaint. For the 10/05/2016 copy, he specifically instructed to “make sure the 10/05 sessions contains the dialogue with the clerk Lisa regarding the return of the original counterclaim at the end.” A week later VICTIM was told that the court “can not find” the tape for the 08/17/2016 hearing. Examination of the copy for the 10/05/2016 hearing revealed that it was precisely edited, curtailing the last fragment specifically sought after by VICTIM, which would record the egregious abuse by the clerk Lisa.
On 01/24/2018, more than eight months after his divorce case was closed, VICTIM made another request for a copy of the 08/17/2016 court hearing; indeed the original tape was still there and he eventually obtained his copy. The copy however is very uncharacteristic of all the other copies that VICTIM have received from either Middlesex County Probate and Family Court or Malden District Court: it has constant strong background noises that suggest powerful electromagnetic interference, interposed by sudden, erratic and extremely high–pitch noises that drowned speaker’s words. Notably such noises obliterated some critical statements of the hearing. Although the copy is characterized by high noise background, the names of both parties were clearly audible at the beginning of the hearing.
E6.3.3. The returned request form for copies of two court hearing tapes. The 08/17/2016 tape was marked as "can not find" (in yellow). The specific instruction for the end fragment of the 10/05/2016 hearing tape is highlighted in red.
On the contrary, Judge Cesar Archilla at Malden District Court immediately saw the problem when VICTIM on 01/11/2017 showed him EXWIFE's Financial Statement that was filled and submitted by Russell L. Chin. He ruled to have a full hearing in the coming extension hearing that he would preside over, in spite of the false claim that a full hearing had been done; he instructed VICTIM to bring everything he could that would show the credibility of the other party. The restraining order against VICTIM at Malden District Court expired after Russell L. Chin and EXWIFE failed to show up in the extension hearing on 03/01/2017.
6.3.2. Harassing and humiliating VICTIM by Judge Maureen H. Monks’ assistant Lisa. On 10/05/2016, Judge Maureen H. Monks blocked VICTIM’s effort to subpoena documents to defend his name and rights against false accusations and frauds. She ruled to appoint a Discovery Master to oversee the discovery and, as a penalty against VICTIM, she ordered VICTIM to pay the initial retainer to Discovery Master.
At the end of the 10/05/2016 hearing, Judge Maureen H. Monks wanted to return the counterclaim exhibits to VICTIM. She asked one of her assistants Lisa, who was sitting in the front row of the well and facing both parties, to pass along the exhibits to VICTIM. When VICTIM bent over to take the exhibits, Lisa made a stunning move to deliberately humiliate him: out of the blue, she hit the bench with her fingertip and ordered VICTIM to round the other party to her right side to pick up the exhibits. Clearly Lisa had sensed Judge’s hostility against VICTIM and acted to entertain her boss, a typical workplace nasty show. But she was so mean and so rude that even Judge Maureen H. Monks could not help but, out of instinct, stop her from further verbal abuse. When VICTIM was rounding the other party to her right, Lisa’s eyes glistened with burning excitement and joy and her face radiated a wisp of cold sinister smile, like a predator was calculating and playing its prey before delivering a lethal bite. When VICTIM looked further up , Judge Monks turned her head away and looked up into the window, trying to contain her amusement and pretending nothing had ever happened.
6.3.3. Concealing and tampering with evidence by an unidentified court staffer(s) to assist Maureen H. Monks’ criminal conspiracy with Russell L. Chin on 12/08/2016 and to block VICTIM from complaining or appealing. On 10/25/2016, VICTIM requested for a copy of each of the 08/17/2016 and 10/05/2016 court hearing tapes, to prepare for his future hearings and complaint. For the 10/05/2016 copy, he specifically instructed to “make sure the 10/05 sessions contains the dialogue with the clerk Lisa regarding the return of the original counterclaim at the end.” A week later VICTIM was told that the court “can not find” the tape for the 08/17/2016 hearing. Examination of the copy for the 10/05/2016 hearing revealed that it was precisely edited, curtailing the last fragment specifically sought after by VICTIM, which would record the egregious abuse by the clerk Lisa.
On 01/24/2018, more than eight months after his divorce case was closed, VICTIM made another request for a copy of the 08/17/2016 court hearing; indeed the original tape was still there and he eventually obtained his copy. The copy however is very uncharacteristic of all the other copies that VICTIM have received from either Middlesex County Probate and Family Court or Malden District Court: it has constant strong background noises that suggest powerful electromagnetic interference, interposed by sudden, erratic and extremely high–pitch noises that drowned speaker’s words. Notably such noises obliterated some critical statements of the hearing. Although the copy is characterized by high noise background, the names of both parties were clearly audible at the beginning of the hearing.
E6.3.3. The returned request form for copies of two court hearing tapes. The 08/17/2016 tape was marked as "can not find" (in yellow). The specific instruction for the end fragment of the 10/05/2016 hearing tape is highlighted in red.
6.3.4. Threatening VICTIM and obstructing justice by Discovery Master Victor J. Tagliaferro. On 11/22/2016, VICTIM arrived at Discovery Master Victor J. Tagliaferro’s law firm first for the scheduled Discovery conference. When VICTIM entered the suite, Victor J. Tagliaferro came out from a room and greeted him courteously, mistaking him as Russell L. Chin. After VICTIM corrected him, he told VICTIM, “I’ve read your counterclaim. About that Chinese espionage part, you will never be able to get too far on that.” He then went back to his room.
After Russell L. Chin arrived, the three convened in a neat yet crowded conference room. Unlike Russell L. Chin and VICTIM, Victor J. Tagliaferro didn’t wear a suit. He wore a white shirt— short-sleeved if VICTIM’s recollection is correct— and tie, and strong cologne as well. When he sit into his chair and settled his arms on the conference table, he flexed his bulging, sturdy and muscular shoulders and arms. He started by asking VICTIM if the latter had any problem with English. VICTIM told him that he had no problem with daily English but he was not familiar with legal terminology. Victor J. Tagliaferro then threatened VICTIM, slowly and word by word, that he would apply sanction against him “with the power vested in me by Judge Monks” if VICTIM did not obey him. He repeated the word “sanction” to make sure VICTIM had gotten it.
Once into the meeting, Victor J. Tagliaferro became an automatic defender for Russell L. Chin, disqualifying VICTIM’s requests while accepting Chin’s claim that would fall into the same category of “unjustified” thinking, in his terms. In doing so, Victor J. Tagliaferro even cited a Latin term Quantun Meruit to deny one of VICTIM’s requests. When VICTIM asked him to explain or write the word down for VICTIM to study later, Victor J. Tagliaferro refused.
With its door closed, the small conference room was like an interrogation room in a mafia movie. The overall atmosphere of the meeting was so slanted and menacing that VICTIM had to call off the meeting and insisted on meeting another time to discuss the final list of discovery requests, after he consulted with or identified an attorney to represent him. The parties agreed to meet again on January 10, 2017.
At the conclusion of the meeting, VICTIM delivered to Russell L. Chin a letter that requested him to bring the original evidence for the scheduled extension hearing on HER DAUGHTER’s restraining order on 12/08/2017, when Judge Maureen H. Monks had promised to revisit the allegation. He asked Victor J. Tagliaferro to witness the delivery but the latter refused. After VICTIM crossed out the witness part and recorded the time of delivery, Victor J. Tagliaferro made a copy of the letter for VICTIM.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Russell L. Chin asked VICTIM to remove EXWIFE from his health insurance plan, claiming that VICTIM’s health insurance plan was not good for EXWIFE. Upon VICTIM’s insistence, Russell L. Chin hand-wrote the request on a yellow legal pad and gave it to VICTIM.
On 01/09/2017, perfectly timed at 5:29 pm, Victor J. Tagliaferros sent both parties an email, canceling the discovery meeting scheduled for the next morning at 10:30 am, based on one of VICTIM’s three reasons for his discovery requests. Another reason was the MA mandatory disclosure rule, though VICTIM had not spelled out the “Rule 410” specifically in his DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM FOR THE 11/22/2016 MEETING. The third reason was “To respond to plaintiff’s attorney’s questions posed in his Request For Production of Documents.”
6.3.5. Conspiring and defrauding with Russell L. Chin by Judge Maureen H. Monks on 12/08/2016. Earlier on 08/17/2016, Judge Maureen H. Monks granted a restraining order to HER DAUGHTER based on “her translation” of an email that VICTIM sent on 06/04/2016. She acknowledged the dispute over the translation and ordered a Mandarin interpreter to “revisit” the email at the extension hearing on 12/08/2016. At the extension hearing, Russell L. Chin ignored VICTIM’s request to bring a copy of the original email for examination, which was hand-delivered to him in the meeting with Victor J. Tagliaferros on 11/22/2016. Faced with her own written note on the restraining order sheet that clearly established the fact that the accusation was not independently translated or verified, and on the verge of almost giving up her effort to resist, Judge Monks immediately picked up a fraudulent statement by Russell L. Chin, which she knew was fraudulent, and ruled to maintain the restraining order, producing a textbook illustration of a tacit conspiracy, in a courtroom and in public, to defraud. The language of the conspiracy was stereotypical of corrupt public officials, so familiar to Chinese of adequate real-world experience.
6.3.6. Retaliating VICTIM for his asking Judge Maureen H. Monks to recuse herself by Victor J. Tagliaferros. On 02/23/2017 VICTIM presented his motion to ask Judge Maureen H. Monks to recuse herself. Judge Maureen H. Monks refused to do so and released her decision on 02/27/2017. A day later, Victor J. Tagliaferros produced a Discovery Master Report to retaliate VICTIM. Not only did he deny VICTIM’s discovery request, but he also defamed VICTIM by implicating him in inappropriate use of business budget for private purpose. He selectively assembled both parties’ statements and prejudiced readers with the false impression that EXWIFE wanted the divorce first and started the separation (and thus more likely wronged in the marriage). By selectively omitting the fact that VICTIM wanted to divorce first and started the separation, he covered up the cause of the divorce, which was supposedly a critical component in any divorce contestation but the very fact that Russell L Chin had been desperately trying to conceal.
E6.3.6. Discovery Master Report produced the day after Judge Maureen H. Monks released her refusal to recuse herself.
- Content highlighted in yellow: Regarding his visit to EXWIFE’s family in May 2013, VICTIM had emphatically stated that he went to China on his business trip “but allocated some time” visiting her mother and sister. Victor J. Tagliaferros deleted the words “but allocated some time” and kept the phrase “on a business trip,” implying that VICTIM used a business trip to visit plaintiff’s family.
- Content highlighted in red: Victor J. Tagliaferros selectively assembled the statements and words from the two parties, misimpressing the readers that EXWIFE initiated the divorce.
6.3.7. Covering up Victor J. Tagliaferros’ rigging of discovery by Judge Maureen H. Monks. After receiving the discovery report, VICTIM immediately went to the court and filed a contest. During the hearing on 03/13/2017, Judge Maureen H. Monks played the manipulation game again. She asked VICTIM, in the context of a financial issue, “so you are saying basically that you are withdrawing your motion for the review of the discovery master’s report that you no longer disagree with that, but that there are other issues about other documents?“ When VICTIM tried to express his reservation in a polite way, she stopped VICTIM and placated him by downplaying the significance of the report, “you know the court still make separate determination on the issues that you raised” and “Whatever other issue you are going to bring the discovery master report does not bind the court. It is not a final determination if that is what you are concerned with.” A few days later VICTIM received her written ruling on the motion, saying that “Defendant has withdrawn his objection.” If VICTIM had been asked to sign a paper to withdraw his contest, he would have bluntly rejected.
6.3.8. Conspiring with Russell L. Chin to retaliate VICTIM in a low and nefarious manner by Judge Maureen H. Monks. Since the first hearing on the divorce on 08/17/2016, Judge Maureen H. Monks had been indulging Russell L. Chin in frauds and fabrications. In the EXWIFE’s Financial Statement that he filled and submitted, Russell L. Chin claimed under penalty of perjury that EXWIFE had no bank account and did not pay him any retainer, forcing VICTIM to subpoena her Bank of America statements and other documents, which in turn led to appointment of Discovery Master Victor J. Tagliaferro to oversee the discovery. Russell L. Chin then harassed VICTIM, repeatedly, by requesting the latter to produce numerous documents that fell into 45 categories, many of which were outrageously unreasonable and irrelevant. VICTIM referred the request to Victor J. Tagliaferro for discussion. In the conference on 11/22/2016, Victor J. Tagliaferro sabotaged VICTIM’s discovery effort and apparently totally ignored Chin’s request. In the 03/13/2017 hearing, Judge Maureen H. Monks blamed VICTIM to defend Victor J. Tagliaferro and Russell L. Chin, “if you did not comply yourself, the rule prevents you from seeking a motion to compel anyway,” totally distorting the causal relationship. While Judge Maureen H. Monks had to yield to MA mandatory disclosure law, in retaliation, she ordered VICTIM to go to Russell L. Chin’s law office at Quincy, physically, to exchange the bank statements, unnecessary, uncomfortable, and distant from VICTIM’s residence, for the sole purpose of fatiguing and humiliating VICTIM into compliance with her measures of rigging justice.* On 04/10/2017, after VICTIM drove more than two hours across the entire Boston City diagonally through afternoon traffic jam and arrived at Russell L. Chin’s law office at Quincy—bringing with him all the required statements of his different bank accounts—Russell L. Chin refused to produce EXWIFE’s Bank of America statements; he handed VICTIM a thick envelope that turned out to contain prints of statements of a joint bank account for VICTIM and EXWIFE, to which VICTIM had 100% online access.
* Acknowledgement to the authors of The Declaration of Independence, from which this statement is adapted.
6.3.9. Indulging Victor J. Tagliaferro in financial misappropriation and embezzlement by Judge Maureen H. Monks. As a penalty and threat to VICTIM for his efforts to seek documented truth to defend his name, which were necessitated and compelled as a response to Russell L. Chin’s false accusations and falsification, Judge Maureen H. Monks ordered VICTIM to pay the initial retainer to the Discovery Master Victor J. Tagliaferro for his “neutral” services. On 11/01/2016 Victor J. Tagliaferro wrote to VICTIM that “I will provide an itemized bill including my time and services expended periodically.” Yet as of today, more than two years after VICTIM’s divorce case was settled, Victor J. Tagliaferro has not produced even a single bill and continues to misappropriate the unused retainer from VICTIM. In MA, legal retainer is defined as advance payment that “the lawyer is obligated to account for the return of the unused portion to the client.” At Middlesex County Probate and Family Court, its accounting department clearly performs annual review and correction over its transactions. Judge Maureen H. Monks has the responsibility to instruct professionals she brings in from the outside to follow the guidelines of Middlesex County Probate and Family Court, rather than allow them to prey on a party as an incentive for them to perform the dirty job on her behalf.
E6.3.9. The letter from Victor J. Tagliaferro that requested a retainer of $3,500 (in yellow) and promised periodic bill (in red).
E6.3.9spl. The refund checks from Middlesex County Probate and Family Court for its failure to reproduce a copy of the 08/17/2016 hearing tape.
The first check issued on 01/06/2017 was not cashed. About a year after VICTIM made the request for a tape copy, the Court issued a refund again on 10/13/2017.
The first check issued on 01/06/2017 was not cashed. About a year after VICTIM made the request for a tape copy, the Court issued a refund again on 10/13/2017.
7. Request for Further Investigation and Prosecution
VICTIM requests further investigation by law enforcement.
Given clear pattern of fabricating, concealing and altering evidence by the people accused, and given the sophisticated level of coordination demonstrated by the people accused, VICTIM requests appropriate response to secure criminal evidence.
VICTIM requests that the perpetrators be prosecuted and justice be served.
VICTIM requests further investigation by law enforcement.
Given clear pattern of fabricating, concealing and altering evidence by the people accused, and given the sophisticated level of coordination demonstrated by the people accused, VICTIM requests appropriate response to secure criminal evidence.
VICTIM requests that the perpetrators be prosecuted and justice be served.
