Public Accusation Part VI(1): Representative Violations by Chin Law Firm
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?
At least two people, Russell L. Chin and his Mandarin interpreter(s), are involved in numerous 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:
6.1.1. 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.