Public Accusation Part VI(2): Violations by Malden District Court
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 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:
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 previous two 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 previous two 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.
