Court Watching Week

This week I was in Court twice. I was in Newburyport District and Cambridge Probate.
Both cases were Pro Se. However, I was informed an Attorney was present at the second case, the Judge ruled the trial had to go forward, without 2 witnesses.

I will say, that both these women were amazing and held their composure with most high professionalism and high kudos from this Reporter. Both had troublesome Judges to deal with and were able to take them on with keen accuity. Both had the possession of true Litigators. I am amazed at their knowledge of the law pertaining to their cases. I also, know there are states that allow a person to become a Lawyer by shadowing and this state should look into this themselves.

As a Journalist Citizen Reporter, I will say both Courts were reluctant to have the cases Videotaped. I have a vision for this to be normal in the Court. Public Record Law needs to come up to the plate in many circumstances. People need to move on but as Atty Prociotto stated, to not be able to obtain public records without huge fees is ridiculous and a travesty. He paid as an Attorney 50,000 dollars to obtain his records from the Court of his own case. Certified copies.

I will say that when the Court wishes technicalities such as Certified copies can toss a case out. Not so in Fridays case in Cambridge. The Judge was emphatic to the Litigant that any copies of the trial before him was to be returned from the parties home. That information was to be impounded and was illegal to possess. "How did you get the copies"? Even though the case has been before the Court 10 years, the question remains imcomprehensible that the Litigant party, mother of a child confiscated by the Court system would be denied copies of her sons records.

This is a nightmare and that Court has asked that a gag order be applied to the case to squash any further investigations into the matter this mother Litigant is concerned with. It is apparant that this mother a disabled woman who was asked repeatedly to stand before the Court to express her case was treated this disparagingly by the officiating Judge. He is not aware of any disability rights and should be repremanded at least for this injustice.

This is just cause in my belief for a new effort to videotape a Court Hearing is urgent and should be implemented immediately when there is a legal disablilty in progress in a party affected in trial. These cases need monitoring for many reasons. Professional Therapists State DSS and others are called to give testimony. In this case it was not clear how the progression of disease had put a cloud of denial on the case before them. All parties were involved for years and the Litigant mother was clearly in a progressive ailment with great stress in pain and process to remain standing. That was defiantly disregarded with prejudice by the officiating Judge.

I was shocked and deeply troubled by this behavior by a member of the Judiciary.