The Witch is Dead

April 16, 2008 • 7 Comments

This morning Judge Michael Livingstone resigned as an associate justice of

the Plymouth County Family and Probate court. The Massachusetts CJC web
site contains all of the details, http://www.mass.gov/cjc .

One of our commentators noted earlier that he was able to cut a deal and
she was not. Absolutely agree with that sentiment. This deal though is much
more fitting of the crimes which he admits to in his Agreement with the
CJC.

As Jane Smith and others have noted, this must not stop here but be a
lesson from which we as a society need to learn. We must put in place
appropriate controls over our judiciary as both the legislative and the
executive branches are balanced by. When we cannot even get a press who
will air the kinds of problems our blogs have been forced to make
transparent then something is seriously wrong.

Keep Up The Pressure Friends, No One Else Will Do It March 30, 2008 • 2
Comments
Just marveling at the power of the Internet Blog and also our ability to get
something done which is, dare I say it, too politically full of minefields for
the average media outlet. We wish it were not that way but perhaps by
taking the lead us Bloggers can clear the mines for the papers, TV and radio
stations to do what we buy their stuff for.

We are looking most closely at the Patriot Ledger. It seems to me the last
story they did was the glowing story on “Iron Mike,” which we now know to
be more like a bully than a champion of justice and the American Way.

The Ledger has some new blogs themselves which perhaps we should all hit
with our experiences with their Iron Mikey.

Positive word in this area is that our favorite local radio station out of
Marshfield is about to air their story, probably good because the tapes they
made are about to disintegrate!
Anyhow, if you feel safe enough please let the Ledger know your
experiences, especially the women. We are finding that when complaints
about being negative about this judge come this way they invariable express
anti-Dad sentiments and need to understand that it is actually mostly women
who Mike has damaged. We thought Susan Wornick at WCVB was going to do
a story but even she chickened out so we must keep reminding the Fourth
Estate of why it exists.

Thank you all for being brave, we know what this guy has done to all of us.

Clearing the Docket 301 March 22, 2008 • 1 Comment

Michael Livingstone observers have long commented on his docket clearing
expertise, how he gets cases decided. By using his highly honed sense of
guilt he simply blames the person he decided was wrong in the first place,
tosses her or him in jail or forces them to pay immense amounts of money
and dismisses them. Simple. Sycophant lawyers (look up sycophant, it is a
great word) hold forth on how wonderful he is at clearing his courtroom
whereas the rest of us wonder what he did to everyone this time.

Well it looks like we have a runner up in that expertise. Apparently having

now learned at the master’s feet Robert J. Guttentag current chair of the
Commission on Judicial Conduct recently sent one of the Livingstone
sufferers, who had the temerity to file several formal complaints with the
CJC , a letter indicating that the Commission had interviewed the
complainant, listened to the hearing tapes, and spoke to the judge in arriving
at its decision.

Now we would never say that a background working for Gillette did not
qualify one Bob Guttentag to be the titular head of the main judicial review
body in Massachusetts but this one was a beaut you see because our intrepid
scalawag had never spoken with the commission as Bob claimed and Mr. S
checked with the tape master who handles all of the recordings for the
Plymouth County Family and Probate Court to see if any tapes had been
ordered up in the last year. Nope. Just for him.

So it appears that in investigating 3 serious charges the CJC performed its

due diligence by talking to the person being charged and that was it.
We can see the conversation now: “Judge Livingstone, have you been mean to
Mr. Scalawag? Oh no,” he answered,” I was just working on my daily gold star
for clearing the cases out of my courtroom!” “Oh wonderful Mr. Judge, now
don’t forget to take your goody bag of Gilette products on your way to
manage your Hi-Lo properties and clearing out some of those smelly poor
tenants, kind sir.”

We are again astounded, left standing here with disbelief dripping from the
corners of our being. Enough said.

Deal Rejected by SJC March 15, 2008 • No Comments

Now we have the Supreme Judicial Court rejecting a deal between the
Commission on Judicial Conduct and Michael Livingstone. And the SJC
ordering that a hearing be held on May 19 seemingly finding sufficient cause
to not let him off the hook with what was widely held to be a six month
suspension.

This “judge” has violated laws, he has harmed many families and mothers and
he has put people in jail telling them that, “ignorance is no excuse.”We think
the same standard should be applied to this judge himself and to think
otherwise is ridiculous. Michael Livingstone is by virtue of his role to be held
to an even higher standard than the rest of us and his boss and the
legislature are not even holding him to our standard.

The former Governor of New York, Elliot Spitzer made his bones on being a
strong law and order guy. Likewise Michael Livingstone who anointed
himself, “Iron Mike” (which was fawningly repeated by the Patriot Ledger),
also the epitome of law and order in Family Court, now has to take his own
medicine. At least Elliot Spitzer had the courage to admit his wrongs and fall
on his own sword whereas Judge Livingston is doing everything to hang onto
his bench and that $134,000 salary, meanwhile continuing to destroy families
and women with his outrageous decisions.

And, secondly what happened to the Commission on Judicial Conduct? On

October 22 2007 they issued a major press release but now have said
nothing publicly about the SJC ordering them to hold a hearing. Have they
had their hand slapped by the SJC?
If this was a policeman or teacher long ago he or she would have been
suspended if not fired.

Finally, what happened to the Press on this story? The New Bedford
Standard Times in its new incarnation is covering this but no one else. When
Judge Murphy sued the media did it make all the news editors into lawyers?
The public has paid to buy all of the junk the media sells in its advertising so
we can have a free press but on a story of such major importance our “free
press” takes a powder. Come on folks, Livingstone even admitted to many of
the charges, you are safe.

The crucial importance of a man with such power and authority over the
families and women of the South Shore cannot be over stated. He has
literally life and death control over these folks and he admits to being a
crook. But the press won’t cover it and the Commission charged with being
our judicial watchdog, with its staff no doubt drawing big salaries, backs off.

It is no wonder you all are dying off and not in this case undeserved.

Lawyers Try to Self Deal But SJC Says Do It Right March 5, 2008 • 1
Comment
In a story pasted below from the March 5 edition of Lawyers Weekly it
appears that the 6 month suspension deal between Michael Livingstone and
the CJC was nixed by the Supreme Judicial Court, a first. Sources indicate
that the deal was not enough for the Court and they want to see what the
process brings forward so Judge Livingstone is to be subject to a hearing on
May 19.

We find it interesting that the organization responsible for judicial conduct

is itself being brought into line by judges, this speaks volumes about the
failure of the Massachusetts’ system to remedy such serious miscarriages.
And now Judge Livingstone is still wreaking havoc with families, mothers and
fathers.

It is also curious that the CJC has not itself released this information and
has on its web site absolutely no official information concerning this date
for the hearing, much as a reprimanded child will go into his room and shut
the door speaking to no one.
Here is what we know so far:

fwLoadMenus();

SubscribeSubscribeLost PasswordLost PasswordStudent OfferStudent

OfferLawyers WeeklyLawyers Weekly Lawyers USA Lawyers USA
Massachusetts Massachusetts Michigan Michigan Missouri Missouri
North Carolina North Carolina Rhode Island Rhode Island South
Carolina South Carolina Virginia VirginiaIn-House PublicationsIn-House
Publications Atlantic Coast In-House Atlantic Coast In-House Midwest
In-House Midwest In-House New England In-House New England In-
HouseMedical Law ReportsMedical Law Reports Massachusetts Medical Law
Report Massachusetts Medical Law Report Michigan Medical Law Report
Michigan Medical Law Report Missouri Medical Law Report Missouri
Medical Law Report Virginia Medical Law Report Virginia Medical Law
ReportClient NewslettersClient NewslettersBooksBooksRules ServiceRules
ServiceIn-HouseIn-HouseReprints/PlaquesReprints/PlaquesLW Online
ForumsLW Online ForumsHow to AdvertiseHow to AdvertiseAdvertiser
Advantage AlertAdvertiser Advantage AlertProduct & Service AlertProduct
& Service AlertReprints/PlaquesReprints/Plaques

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 Lawyers Weekly, Inc.

March 5, 2008

News Story

SJC nixes disciplinary recommendation for judge

Orders CJC to proceed with public hearing

By David Frank

The Supreme Judicial Court has rejected a joint disciplinary

recommendation between the Commission on Judicial Conduct and Probate &
Family Court Judge Michael J. Livingstone.
Pursuant to CJC Rule 13B, which went into effect last July, the parties
submitted an agreed-upon recommendation that would have resolved the
formal charges brought against Livingstone.

But, in a surprising move, the SJC declined to adopt the proposed resolution
and ordered the CJC to continue with its previously scheduled public
hearing.

The hearing is now slated for May 19.

“Any time you have the parties involved in litigation coming to an agreed upon
recommendation, the thought is that the court would defer to the judgment
of the lawyers,” said an attorney familiar with Rule 13B. “But that obviously
didn’t happen here, which makes you wonder what the SJC thought was the
appropriate discipline.”

Since the parties were required to obtain the permission of the SJC, the
proposed disciplinary action involved either a suspension, monetary sanction
or other restriction on the judge’s assignments.

CJC Executive Director Gillian E. Pearson said the hearing, which was initially
scheduled for Jan. 2, was postponed in order to allow the SJC to consider
the joint recommendation.

The May 19 hearing will be presided over by retired Superior Court Judge
Charles F. Barrett.

“This is the first and only time that a Rule 13 submission has been sent to
the SJC,” said Pearson. “Speaking in general, the SJC’s order of August
2006 made clear that the commission did not have the power to enter into
an agreed disposition with a judge that included a suspension, a monetary
sanction or any other conditions on the judge’s assignments.”

Previously, Pearson said the parties were free to enter into those types of
agreed dispositions without the approval of the SJC.

The charges against Livingstone originated from a CJC investigation of

complaints filed by the SJC in 2005 and Raymond Hotte in 2006.
Both complaints were brought in connection with the judge’s role as a
property owner in a dispute with Hotte over a building Livingstone owned
with a business partner in New Bedford.

According to the formal charges, the CJC alleges that Livingstone engaged
in a pattern of misconduct over a period of time that was prejudicial to the
administration of justice and unbecoming a judicial officer.

As part of its complaint, the CJC alleges that Livingstone made at least two
false statements in an affidavit filed in New Bedford District Court.

Livingstone’s lawyer, Michael E. Mone Sr. of Boston, could not be reached for
comment prior to deadline. MLW

75.67.196.31/5.93
0 milliseconds _uacct = “UA-141441-5″;urchinTracker();

How It All Works February 15, 2008 • No Comments

We at windowpain have been curious about just how a lawyer wins with Judge
Livingstone, what the mechanics of that are and what the learning curve is.
One comment we heard recently that covers all of these questions is that
Law is really a contest between liars and the following story we heard
certainly confirms this observation.
It seems that one of our local South Shore public figures who has been a
selectman, a finance committee chair, a major fundraiser and leader, and
been instrumental in many local “biggies” such as the commuter rail
extension, water treatment and the establishment of the paramedic system
on the south shore is in a tough divorce battle but is finally getting to the
last phases of property distribution after years of fighting on everything
else. Jennifer DiGregorio of Marshfield is opposing counsel and during a trial
last month insisted on several occasions during her presentation that this
fellow had “stolen” a large amount of money from an estate he is the
executor of. Not only did this gain him an overnight in jail but he had to pay
some of this money to his ex on Judge Livingstone’s order. In other words,
yes, the judge made him pay stolen money to his ex, that is if you believe
this lawyer and the judge.

Per usual the judge simply did not listen to defense counsel who tried to
address this and other falsehoods brought forward by DiGregorio as he had
already decided what to do in this case and was salivating for the next
sacrifice to be laid out in his court. Unfortunately for everyone who has
suffered under this judge it is the same impression, once his mind is decided
he does not listen to any such messy details as facts or truth if it does not
fit his reality. In clinical psychology we have a name for that and everyone
knows what it is.

Can you say “psychosis?”

The real story independently verified through court records by this

publication is that a large sum of money was moved in order to gain interest
but that this money always remained as an estate account at the same bank.
No money was stolen but interest is now being gained for the beneficiaries
of this estate whereas it was not before.

So this is how to work with a judge like Michael Livingstone, you lie and then
if your lie is better than the truth then you win. Apparently J DiGregorio
lost bad in the past under Livingstone and is clearly a good learner!

What gets even more Kafkaesque about all of this is that when our South
Shore public figure reported this clear and intentional false statement and
effort to prejudice a judge’s decision to the Board of Overseers, they
wanted to know if J DiGregorio could claim that she believed this falsehood
and if so it was not a violation of the Massachusetts Rules of Conduct.

Yes readers, if you can claim that you believe your lie then you are not lying
and not guilty of making an intentionally false statement (legalese for lying).
Try that next time you are stopped by a police officer or sworn in at court
when an inconvenient truth comes your way.

By God, if it works for the lawyers and judges then it should for us writers
and business owners, right?

The Problem With Lawyers January 19, 2008 • 1 Comment

One of the other curious issues involved in the Judge Livingstone affair is
the conduct of lawyers. We thought they also had ethical standards and
believed in a moral code which sets standards for behavior and guides their
actions. In thinking about this and discussing it with the many folks now
concerned it becomes evident that lawyering is only about one thing to many
lawyers, winning and losing and protecting their own.

We just heard one of those radio talk shows with several “law chicks,” as
they call themselves discussing non-litigious approaches to divorce in a high
minded and wonderful discourse. The lawyer leading the discussion is one of
those lawyers who learned to win with Judge Livingstone and clearly has no
ethical or moral standards in reality.

Michael Livingstone is a lawyer, and when you consider the issue, 50% of the
lawyers in front of him win. Most of our legislators are lawyers, so do we
really stand a chance of forcing Michael Livingstone to listen to the people?

We are not sure but are hoping that the few non-lawyer legislators including
Vinny De Macedo, Tom Calter, Therese Murray, etc. will tip the balance for
justice.

Lawyers, in the best interests of their clients, learn how to play judges like
Michael Livingstone and can thereby win knowing that the facts and truth
are absolutely irrelevant.

As they say in the legal biz: “The best law money can buy!”
At least Michael Livingstone goes cheap, “Hi Lo Corporation”, give us a break!

We The People January 19, 2008 • 1 Comment

We hope that soon we can take up other issues that require the attention of
Windowpain Clarity but unfortunately until this Judge Livingstone matter is
“disposed of” it is probably the single most pressing issue of grave
importance to the residents of the entire South Shore of Massachusetts.
We have just come across another very recent tale of injustice, prejudice,
bias and clear malfeasance on the part of the Judge that it must be publicly
shared. We know this person personally so can provide you with very direct
information. This is quite an extreme example of the human side of what
Judge Livingstone damages and the devil is again in the details. Perhaps it
will spur on action.

There is a gentleman in his late fifties with a 30 year record of being the
CEO of several children’s charities, mostly providing services to abused
children and to families with a high level college degree and an extensive
record as an elected and appointed municipal official in two towns on the
South Shore who has been battling a nasty divorce proceeding with his ex-
wife for several years with Judge Michael Livingstone presiding .

From the beginning it has been clear that this judge has decided that
somehow this fellow is a deadbeat Dad and even though Dad has never
missed child support which he always pays at over what the formula requires
and that he has paid more than his share to put now 2 children through
university and keep one in a very expensive private school while battling
congestive heart failure and other heart problems, various surgeries and has
been fully invested in a startup to provide services for the disabled elderly
and veterans, this Judge has continued to find against him. Even though this
man has paid for his children to purchase cars, go to Europe and Argentina
while he struggles to just keep his health and build his business, using
mortgages and credit cards as do many startups, this judge treats him with
extreme bias and prejudice. Relevant to this story is the fact that this
gentleman was just out of the hospital for heart treatments due to a heart
attack for five days before what is to follow.
In the third week of January 2008, now last week, Michael Livingstone
sentenced this man to 90 days in a maximum security prison, the Plymouth
County Correctional Facility. This man’s ex-wife who now with her new
husband earns almost $400,000 a year as well as some unknown payout for
him from his former vice-president’s position at Kingston Technology was
determined to do as much harm to her former husband as she could and her
lawyer and the judge were more than willing to cooperate during this hearing
which was held to finalize some relatively small financial disagreements.

In the hearing itself Jude Livingstone heard the wife’s/plainfiff’s lawyer’s

argument and then before hearing the man’s case that these educational
costs were already paid had his clerk call down to the holding facility and
prepare for the man to be incarcerated also positioning the courtroom
bailiff behind the man again making it clear that this judge had made his
decision before even hearing the father’s case or looking at his numbers.

We are told by the staff at both Brockton Court and the Plymouth Court
that this is very common behavior for Judge Livingston. They for obvious
reasons do not want to go on the record but indicated to us that they
intensely dislike this judge and are fully aware of how he operates. They are
aware of the charges against this judge and they indicated great relief
knowing he would be gone as he damages their own integrity and clearly puts
people in jail who never should be there.

There are too many issues in this situation to go into great detail beyond
clear malfeasance in not considering both case arguments and then making a
decision. Why is ninety days in a maximum security prison an appropriate
sentence for a financial disagreement that was never discussed in a so-called
“four way meeting?” This was a man that clearly loved his children and
worked hard to support them and had just had a heart attack, he could have
been being sentenced to death given the stress he experienced.

For now let us just finish with the subject line, “We The People,” this judge
is answerable to no one and must be held to the letter of the law, not
unfairly as he treats people in his courtroom but fairly and with
transparency and due process. The transparency, windowpain clarity, is up to
us, the due process must take place.
Livingstone Cuts Deal January 5, 2008 • 1 Comment
Word has it that Plymouth County Probate and Family Court Judge Michael
Livingstone has cut a deal with the Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) to
step down so they will be forced to drop their action against him. Thus the
indefinite postponement first released on December 20 of last year. There
are two outstanding problems with this, the first is that until he does step
down he continues to irreparably damage families, children, Moms and Dads
with his off the wall decisions. We thought CJC and the legislature had a
duty to uphold laws and protect the public as their primary duties. Letting a
guy who clearly has problems continue to stay on the bench with all of that
power over folks is nuts and makes us question why CJC even exists if this is
all they can do.

Media outlets other than this one are withholding publishing or going on the
air with the story because they are worried that somehow this will cause him
to retaliate or strike back and refuse to resign. Believe all of us who know
this guy, it can’t get any worse and if you all had not heard yet, all bullies are
chickens harboring deep-seated self-esteem problems and bad press is like a
high colonic for them, best possible cure. Right now he is like a cornered
tiger and does not care what he does being even more dangerous than he
already was.

All of which leads to the “big” issue, how to prevent this happening in the
future besides preventing Jane Swift from appointing judges, which should
no longer be a problem. We are researching the pros and cons of elected
judges and can see a system whereby judges are elected every four years
and forbidden to campaign, thus no special interest money. The press has
the responsibility to publicize judge profiles for the public at election timed
to help the decision but the judges are forbidden from campaigning.

After seeing what can go wrong, especially in family court, we figure there
has got to be a better way. Why do two of the three pillars of democracy,
executive and legislative have to be subject to the will of the people but the
third does not?

Many states elect judges quite successfully and layering in the component of
preventing campaigning from being an issue removes some of the problems an
elected judge system does experience, the influence of money.
We believe it long past time for a dialog on this issue leading to a statewide
referendum to subject all state district judges to election and creating the
statutes or constitutional changes to make this possible. Unfortunately
Michael Livingstone is not the only judge who needs a second look and better
oversight.

Charity Ratings and Realities December 5, 2007 • No Comments

A new thread we are planning to comment on relates to charities,
philanthropies and to how good works are best accomplished. This time of
year this topic is on everyone’s minds and it is surprisingly different than
many may realize. Like any business charities suffer their ups and downs and
have good ones and bad ones with the bulk generally doing an okay job. The
difference about charities is that they are able to cover up their activities
because many folks prefer to maintain a good feeling rather than examine
too closely the reality of the matter. This of course makes charitable
activity a fertile ground for cons and fraudulent activity cloaking such
improper and usually illegal actions in what we ahve called the “halo effect.”
So rule one is not to be fooled by the subject matter of an organization, if
you are thinking of donating please perform your due diligence as you would
with any other business investment.

Two sites may be of particular help. www.charityezone.com is a portal that

connects you to many other sites offering information on charitities
including the philanthropic arm of the Better Business Bureau.
www.guidestar.org contains the federal tax returns of many charities which
although they can be misleading are better than nothing.

Most ratings services focus on large charities so your neighborhood shelter

or animal assistance program is probably not rated. But smaller charities are
easier to scrutinize because they require less analysis and time, just talk to
the clients, the staff, the volunteers and the board members to get a sense
of how your money will be used.

It is not that easy to quote percentages of overhead because like any

business new charities have higher overheads than old ones but generally
speaking overhead should not exceed 20% without a good reason. And bear in
mind that a charity must make its books available on request to anyone who
asks, refusal to do this indicates a problem.

The new direction of doing good is to combine beneficial activity with

business so that the two are in many cases now becoming indistinguishable.
This makes due diligence a little more difficult but the effort to understand
what “social entrepreneurism” is all about will make it even more worthwhile.
The advantage of a charity figuring out how to support itself as a business
or how to accomplish its mission as a business is that the chances that the
pain and problems they are tackling stand a much better chance of being
ameliorated than if they wait on contributions or contracts.

There is no excuse for charities’ boards or staffs committing errors or

crimes in their work these days as so much business assistance and guidance
is available from many institutions and individuals. Do not accept the excuse
that criminal activity was committed in the name of “doing good” anymore
than you accept that the killing of innocents is justified by terrorist beliefs,
there is no difference except in hopefully degree of damage.