2023-10-03 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on the Judiciary
2023-10-03 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on the Judiciary
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Senate chair169 of the joint committee on judiciary. Thanks everybody for coming, and I'm pleased to share today's hearing. Today, we'll be covering a variety of legislative proposals pertaining to court administration. I believe I'm the only Senate member of the judiciary committee here in person or virtually. I'm pleased to be joined, by our house co chair, reps in a Michael Day, and ask that he introduce his colleagues.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, Mr. chairman. Good afternoon, everyone. Joining us, in person196 here today is representative Dan Carey, and virtually with us, representative Brandy Fluka Oakley and Representative Chris Hendricks. Thanks. Great.
SPEAKER1 - Take care of your day. Before I begin, I'd like to remind participants and viewers of some ground rules. To ensure that everyone who is registered has a chance to speak, Testimony will limited will214 be limited to three minutes per individual. Individual individuals may only218 speak once per hearing, but may address more than one bill during their testimony. As is customary in the legislature, will be taking public officials out of turn. Written testimony may be submitted at any time for consideration until the committee in the biz. The bill, this may be sent either by mail to the judiciary committee at 24 Beacon Street, Room 136, Boston, MA, or by email to research direct Michael Musto at michael. Musto@mehouse.gov. We have over a 100, excuse me, not a 15050 individuals sign up to week today, ask that take this consideration on your testimony. And, again, welcome, everyone. And, the first interview we have to sign up our, district attorney, Mary and Ryan, and representative Catalo. I want to, I believe, want to speak together. And good afternoon.
SPEAKER3 - Good afternoon.
REP CATALDO - HB 1412 - Good afternoon, chairman day. Chairman Eldridge, members of the committee. Thank you so much for this opportunity to testify and for taking us out of turn. I am here principally to introduce somebody who needs little introduction to this panel, district attorney Marian Ryan of Middlesex County with whom I was very proud to, work on and file this bill house 1412. This committee has done so much, outstanding and groundbreaking work on criminal justice reform over the past several years in it, we have really seen, the, the effects of that in terms of reduced incarceration rates across Massachusetts, which have been quite market And I think it's incumbent upon stakeholders in the criminal justice system to build upon that work by using, their experience to make, further proposals to come with a scalpel and really make the administration of our, justice system more fair more equitable and more efficient.
And that's what the district attorney has done with this bill to propose, flexibility to drop some cases that have a broad, range of facts and circumstances that are associated with them down to the district court level. And before turning it over to the DA, I'll just note that in my experience as a federal prosecutor working in federal district court and also in general misdemeanor's court, and in mental health court and, drug court that this type of flexibility, this dexterity, that can be given to the court system, two371 prosecutors to take to drop cases down, where they are less serious and where there377 are, opportunities, to use a bunch of different tools that are at the court's disposal and at the DA's disposal can be very powerful and, can result in a more fair and equitable administration of our criminal justice system. Thank you so much for this opportunity. I'll turn it over to the capable hands of RDA.
MARIAN RYAN - MIDDLESEX COUNTY - HB 1412 - Thank you, representative. Thank397 you Chair day. Chair Eldridge. For this opportunity, this bill, as representative Cataldo mentioned, really strikes a balance. Between404 what we see and increasing number of swatting and other kinds408 of threat situations, particularly around schools We recorded an enormous number of these last year during the school year. And right now, when we choose to go forward, on those cases, our only option is to bring them to superior court where the maximum sentence is 20 years state prison. There are many people who need resources, who need some accountability put in place.
Whether it's mental health services, fire setters program, whatever it may be, we could very much better attack that problem in the district court. This bill would give the district court concurrent jurisdiction, particularly in those circumstances where we know the445 person who's made the threat doesn't actually have an access to weapons. We we've already had an opportunity to conduct a search. There are no weapons, and it is a lesser level of threat, but some one that has still created concern in the community and that we need to address. So we're asking for a favorable vote on this to give us increased flexibility in responding to an increasing problem. I'd be happy to take any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you district attorney. Thank you, representative Cataldo. Any questions from the committee members?
SPEAKER2 - K.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for coming
SPEAKER5 - for
SPEAKER1 - the committee. See you.
SPEAKER2 - Also look to pardon me. Recognize, Representative Markey has joined us, a member of the committee virtually as well.
SPEAKER1 - Adam, do you want to testify? Please yep.
REP DECKER - HB 1453 - Chair Day Chair Eldridge, and my distinguished508 colleagues on the judiciary committee. Thank you for allowing me to512 testify today and to report of H.1453, which would increase the per page rate approved court transcribers receive for the vital services they provide our judicial system. I'd like to do a little time traveling to support this increase. So let's all go back to 1988. A loafer bread was535 60 cents.537 Ronald537 Reagan was president, and George Michael was at the top541 of the music charts with the song faith. I was a freshman in college. I had big Jersey hair, and I was wearing too much neon, but so was Madonna. 1988 was also when the current rate of $3 per page was set for our approved court transcribers in Massachusetts.
Highly trained professionals, like my constituent, Jerry Shea, listened to the recordings of court proceedings and accurately type out the spoken word. Creating a written legal record. Their work is especially important when cases head to the Massachusetts appeals court or the SJC.583 These are highly skilled, certified individuals who must adhere to strict requirements set by the trial court. The length of time to prepare transcript is anywhere from three to six hours. Frankly, I can't imagine a fair or impartial trial without them. You got to have faith. Was George Michaels refrain in 1988? Please restore mine and give our approved court transcribers a long overdue base. Thank you for your time, your attention. And for taking me out of turn. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you so much, representative. Any questions from the committee? Thank you very much. Appreciate it.625 I don't see reps in a gentile here. Virtually, we have some legislators signed up, Senator Gomez, Senator Gomez. Center Adam Gomez, are you on virtually? Okay. Representative Carlos Gonzalez. Representative Pat Hadad Repsinib Orlando Ramos. Okay. Okay. Then moving on to house 1813 Senate 1083 filed by reps in a whips center of Moran and act relatively efficient management and operation of the registries of probate. We have a panel, with chief justice Casey and Dominic Tesencso. Good afternoon.
JOHN CASEY - PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT - HB 1813 - SB 1083 - Yes. Good afternoon, chairman. Thank you693 so much for this opportunity and members of the committee. My name is John Casey. I'm the chief justice of the probate and family court, and I sit here today with the deputy court administrator, Domenic DiCenso. So, we're here in support of H.1813 Senate Bill 1083. And as you have, met with us in the past and you've heard from us, you know that the probably in family court. I'm sure you've heard from constituents, has been in crisis. And we have been working for at least five plus years now to improve the operations of court, to provide better access to justice, for every court user.
And, this is a, fundamental piece of what we're trying to do to, to fix the operations of the court. And that is to provide necessary, staffing to registries across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And what if happened in the past without going into too much of it is that, the staff was taken from the registry, put in the lobby side, the workflow would then the red sheet would take it in. It would go to the lobby, and they would be overworked, and it would take a long time to get to it. And their problem So the registers, brought this to our attention a few years ago, and, we were able Dominic was able to identify about 23 first assistant register positions.
That were necessary, in collaboration, with the registers. And we were able to convince the court administrator John Beow at the time that it was such an emergency that we needed him to temporarily, prove and fund those positions, and that's what was done. And they have so we've seen it in action now. We need to codify it through this legislation, and it's working. You'll hear for testimony directly. There are registers to hear first assist and registers assist and registers, who have seen the difference work is being processed, within hours as816 opposed to weeks or months. But it's fundamental. Again, this legislation passed so that these people in these positions can be protected. So thank you very much. Any questions of me or SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, chief justice. Did did you want to speak with Mr. Desendel? Sure.
DOMENIC DICENSO - PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT - HB 1813 - SB 1083 - Thank you. This is my first, go around providing testimony, to the legislative party. So, I apologize if I mess up in the protocols. But that said, my name is, Domenic DiCenso. I am the deputy court administrator of the probate family court. one of the trial courts core values as access to justice. The bill in front of this committee, speaks to that very subject. So many self represented litigants come into our courts, and are just not aware of what is expected to them, which is no fault of their own
. The as we ask for today, along with the tremendous probate and family court staff that we already have, the lifeline to help these folks through some of most difficult times in their lives. These positions are pot legal expert information and pros process providers and sometimes social workers. But ultimately, they are our highest level problem solvers, and I sorely needed to continue servicing some of our most vulnerable of our population you. I thank you for894 your consideration, and I'm easily found that the probate and family court administrative office, if you need assistance or any of your issuance. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you so much, administrator. Any questions from the committee? Sure day.
REP DAY - Just briefly, Mr. chairman. Thank you. Nice job on your first time up. Louisiana. Thank you so much. I just want to, compliment you. Thank you. And the, next panel we're going to hear from on your work last term on coming together to build consents consensus makes our job a lot easier when we're looking at this type of a request. So just wanted to note that and appreciate it for the record.
CASEY - Okay. And thank you very much for, providing for eight additional is on. That's obviously another major building block for us, and, you'll hopefully be addressed on H.1491. Senate Bill 1138, which will, simply change the statute from 11 circuit judges to 19. So you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you. Thank you, chief justice. Thanks,947 administrator. Next, we have a panel, with Plymouth County Register Probate McDonough, Colleen Bierley, and Anastasia Perino. Good afternoon.
MATTHEW MCDONOUGH - PLYMOUTH PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT - HB 1813 - SB 1083 - Good afternoon. Chair Eldridge Chair Day, thank you very much for hearing from us today and to the panel members. We appreciate your time as well. You heard from us in the last legislative session, and the bill is basically identical. I do want to reiterate some of the challenges that we faced as registers on the front line dealing with family issues in the last decade plus. Some of the things the chief spoke to are what families are dealing with on a daily basis, and they are in crisis when they come to our counter. They're trying to navigate the Massachusetts uniform probate code, and much of that is administered through our registries. They're dealing1008 with opioid epidemic issues. Dealing with loved ones who have not survived an overdose.
We're trying to figure out what to do with children and how to attain guardianship and make sure that they can go to school and go to doctor's appointment and have access to records. They're trying to deal with domestic violence issues that are becoming more and more complex, especially with technology that we see every day. 90% of our litigants are self represented on one side of the case or the other. We're truly a unique division of the trial courts, and we were in a moment of crisis. I can say without any hesitation and unanimously that we've worked in concert with our chief justice and our deputy court administrator to strive to get consensus about how to address those concerns. We were very pleased this summer to see in the budget process that eight additional1051 judges are being asked, to be steeped forward in the legal community.
We support that a 100%. It's going to help our judges have, more time for writing, and more time to give to the people who come into the court. We addressed, the problems within the registry, twofold. one is, and our bill is to have 21 assistant registers and first assistant registers. Folks are going to be able to help us to channel, the MUPC requirements, which are rather complex, make sure the cases can be heard quicker. Support our and judicial case managers as they're dealing with the pathways program to divert modification cases so the judges have more time for their more cases, they need to be heard quickly. That consensus has resulted in the hiring of these people and the implementation, and that is the big difference between the last time spoken today, and I can tell you that they have done a world of wonder to improve the services that we provide.
These folks are helping us to make our guardianship clinics thrive. Lawyer of the day programs work on a daily basis across the Commonwealth and our virtual registry, which I know you've heard about. We've had over 600,000 unique use of the virtual registry, essentially adding another, front counter to each registry across the state. And those are things that our system registers and first registers have been able to do to prove their worth. We want to make sure they're codified. We want to make sure that they're there and they're protected under the statute. And we deeply appreciate your consideration for this I'd ask my colleague Anastasia Welsh Perrino, our vice president of our association, and the register in Barnstable to speak to our deputy assistant registers.
ANASTASIA WELSH PERRINO - MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT - HB 1813 - SB 1083 - Good afternoon, chairman Eldridge, chairman Day, members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. We were fortunate to speak with I believe it was last October on Zoom when we were doing COVID and explained a little bit about this bill. I'd like thank our chief justice, chief Casey for his support of this bill for us. And I think the emphasis on this bill again is the chief, our chief Casey, saw that during the pandemic, we were in a crisis situation with the number of pro se litigants that were still coming to our court and still continue to have come to our court, self represented, with no help from attorneys. And this has created a situation where people need help. They need people to sit down with them. They need people to explain things to them. It's an access to justice issue.
So we are grateful that many of our assistance and first assistant registers are here today, and these people have been a tremendous help to some of the population and our constituents1209 that come to court. But we need to go a step further, and we ask that you actually codify this legislation because god forbid, there'll be a downturn in the economy. And something happens and all these wonderful attorneys and managers lose their positions. The probate and family court will be going in a step backwards. one other thing I would like to add, as part of this legislation, it provides for an equalization of a stipend1236 of a what's called a deputy assistant register, which is already currently1240 in Chapter two 17. This This pro proposed legislation equalizes the stipend of our local six union employees who receive a disparage its salary depending upon what county they live in.
So somebody in my county who is what one of those people that'd be one of your go to employees in a registry gets a $6000 salary in addition to their union salary, whereas someone in another county gets 15% of a registered salary. So our goal is to equalize and give each deputy assistant register in our courts. A stipend of 10% of the register salary. I urge your support of this legislation for pay equity for our deputy assistant registers who are already there and our go to employees and to codify this legislation for our wonderful people who are here, many of them, first assistant and assistant registers who are really the backbone of the probate family courts and have helped tremendously with self represented litigants1304 access the court system in probate and family court. Thank you1308 all very much. My colleague, Colleen Brierley.
COLLEEN BRIERLEY - NORFOLK PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT - HB 1813 - SB 1083 - Thank you. Good afternoon. Chairman Day Senator Eldridge and the judiciary committee. My name is Colleen Brierley. I am an Attorney. I was elected, as the Norfolk County Register in the year 2020. My brother, registrar Matt McDonough has testified, a little bit about the history, general law 217, which describes the different positions within a probate family court and how the bill before you is essential to the vision of chief justice Casey to implement pathways and pathways you may ask what that is. Basically, it's pathways to justice will speed dignity.
I'm a new register. Just two and a half years ago, I had a private practice and a CPCS attorney representing many children and adults in the juvenile courts a little bit in the district court, and when it brought me over to the probate and family court, before becoming the register. I believe, like many people may believe that the probate and family court deals with people when they're in meeting a divorce or a family member died and you need to probate in a state. However, boy, if I learned a lot in two and a half years, I used to think that it was really in the juvenile and district courts that you would find, unrepresented, contingent clients, people in crisis needing, attorneys, try to navigate very devastating situations in their lives.
But in those courts, what I what I would see is that many people are lucky enough to be appointed in a turn in the juvenile district court. Well, you don't see that in approving the1414 family court. And I know now because I was an attorney as a CPCS1418 attorney for over 25 years. Since becoming a registrar has seen an entirely different situation in the probate and family court, I've learned that the probate family court is where people go in to ask for help. They're in crisis. They have extreme anxiety. They come there without lawyers. They basically walk to the registry in extreme anxiety, needing legal, expert legal health without a lawyer, locking up to front counters, throughout the entire state every day. And this work, and the volume of this is voluminous. It's daunting, and it goes directly toward widening these positions.
And since they've been in app re put into place and given to us, chief justice Casey, what I've seen in my two and a half years there is an extreme change. I see grandparents coming in who are an extreme worry over their own child, who's suffering with an addiction problem, and then health issue. DCF is, moving, try trying to protect the children, take them into care. And the Grandparent is there needing a guardianship. They're just draw it. And as, court administrative, DiCenso said, these positions called for the person, this deputy to be part legal expert, part social worker, and troubleshooting. A couple of weeks ago, thank you very much, and I would ask for your endorsement of this bill. And as you go on and on, because we are all very cashing in about the need for this bill. Thank you very much.
MCDONOUGH - You did also ask us about seeking support from the community, and I wanted to know for the record that we received the unanimous endorsement of the Massachusetts Bar Association, as well as the Massachusetts end of courts. And I believe a letter was sent yesterday, from chief justice lock and court administrator Tom Ambrosino, supporting the bill. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Great.
1530 PERRINO1530 -1530 Like1530 to also express our support for the new additional probate family court judges. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Yes. Absolutely.
SPEAKER8 - Thank you all very1536 much.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, Richard. Appreciate you. Next bill before us is House 1791 Senate 938. Bob Tyler Senator Cream, enact protecting safety of victims of violent crimes. And if we we have Ann Miella from attorney general and Campbell's office? Good afternoon.
ANN MEOLA - COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS - HB 1791 - SB 938 - Good afternoon. Chairman Eldridge. Chairman Day and members of the joint committee on the judiciary. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Ann Meola and I am the director of the Victim Compensation and Assistance Division at the Office of Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell. I here on behalf of the attorney general to express our strong support for house bill 1791 and senate bill 938, an act to protect the privacy of crime victims. Which was filed by senator Creem and representative Tyler in collaboration with the attorney General and I thank the Senator and the reprehensive for their partnership in bringing this legislation forward.
As we all know too well, violent crime impacts every aspect of a person's life. The resulting physical and psychological injuries can affect a person's ability to work, to go to school, and meet their own individual goals and aspirations. The compensation program, which my division administers, provide fine provides financial assistance to eligible victims, a violent crime for medical, dental care, mental health counseling, funeral burial costs, crime scene cleanup, security measures just to name a few. However, what brings me here today is to ask for help to keep victim information private. For benefits to survivor must complete an application. For our review, provide additional supportive information as required.
If we determine that the person is eligible, we must also request information from survivors about expenses, and we do that to ensure that the funds are used for permitted purposes. These applications, accompanying documents, and files routinely contain private information that victims understandably want to keep confidential for example, these records may include1684 the victim's home or work address, phone numbers, names, and addresses of families, and friends, medical history, behavioral history, and doctor information. Over the past few years, we have seen a more request for records. With a while is it our practice to keep this information confidential and up have updated our red regulations to reflect this practice?
My division is increasingly forced to defend this position holding that this information is protected by regulation and statute. A survivor of sexual assault or domestic violence applies for benefits with the uncertainty that their information will be kept confidential and then fund offender could find them through that information. Through a records request. Some even make the difficult choice of not applying. The information that we maintain can also include third parties and including witnesses and providers who are only there to help. So the legislation addresses these concerns. So we urge the committee to report the bill out favorably and thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you this committee today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you so much for time for the committee. Any questions from committee members, chair day?
DAY - Thanks, chair. Council, did you say courts are ruling against your position?
MEOLA - That has been the case. Yes.
DAY - In requiring the disclosure of this information?
MEOLA - Through the legal process.
DAY - Thank you.
MEOLA - Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you so much. Next person we have signed up, just buying a different Bellhouse 1561, sent at 915, five by reps in the hunt. Senator Broudsburg and Act relative to in Independency, Shannon Deal.
SPEAKER15 - Good afternoon.
SHANNON DALE - MASSACHUSETTS COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES - HB 1561 - SB 915 - Good afternoon. Chairs Day, Eldridge, and members of the committee. Good afternoon. My name is attorney Shannon Dale, and I'm currently serve as legislative policy council at the Committee for Public Council Services. I've also represented clients in both the district and superior court for over 10 years and can attest to the consequences our clients face when legal counsel fees are imposed upon them by the court. With that said, I'm pleased to be before you today to bright to provide testimony and support of senate 915 house 1561 an act related to indigency. And I'd like to focus my testimony today on the portion of the bill that seeks to abolish the legal counsel fee.
That's currently imposed on individuals who are deemed indigent by department. The 6th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees individuals accused of a crime, the right to counsel. If an accused individual cannot afford to hire a lawyer,1861 the responsibility then falls to the state to provide counsel for that person, yet in more1867 than 40 states, including the Commonwealth, people who are too poor to pay for a lawyer are assessed a legal counsel fee for invoking the very constitutional right that is owed to them. Now while a $150 may not seem significant to you or me, for indigent clients, it can and often does lead to very real and very damaging consequences, including, but not limited to incarceration, loss of income, employment, and housing.
Mandated legal counsel fees is also a practice that is not applied uniformly in courts. It's a holy discretionary order entirely dependent upon what judge is sitting an arraignment session. I, myself, have seen many judges waive the legal counsel fee at arraignment while other judges will order payment of the fee at the next court day. A judge can also order the individual to pay 15 hours of community service, an option that itself also comes with its own set of consequences for our clients. For example, for our clients who must show up to work to be paid, taking time off of work to perform community service is simply not an option. And for other clients who struggle with homelessness or physical disability and are unable to afford the legal counsel fee.
The coordination of 15 hours of mandated labor is simply not feasible. I've also been witness to scenarios where a case has reached this endpoint in litigation the legal counsel fee remains outstanding. A judge bears the ultimate authority in such a scenario to what will happen to a case that has technically been disposed of, whether by a no process, dismissal, or an acquittal. Some judges waived the legal counsel fee, but it is also entirely common for a judge to leave the case open, a dismissal only to be entered upon the payment of being made. Ultimately, this causes1968 cases to remain need honestly open, hanging over a client's head, further preventing them from requiring a job, housing, etcetera.
And as I'm sure you're aware, the ripple of an open criminal case cannot be understated, especially1980 for individuals who are seeking to reengage1982 with their community, find housing, and employment. Needless contingencies on cases that have been disposed of by the court process also clogged district court dockets, create unnecessary court dates for our client and work for probation officers. I'd ask that you report this1997 bill out favorably as this committee has done1999 in prior consequence on an indigent individual who has chosen to exercise his or constitutional right to counsel. Happy to answer any questions. And I thank you much for your time this afternoon. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you so much, miss Dale. Any questions from the committee members? Thank you very much.
SPEAKER6 - Thank you. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER1 - Alright, next bill is house 1651 filed by reps that have livingstone and act addressing racial disparity in jury selection. I have Theresa, Koni, CPCS.
SPEAKER13 - Good
SPEAKER1 - afternoon.
THERESA CONEY - COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES - HB 1651 - Good afternoon. Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. I'm testifying in support of House Bill 1651 and asked which provides concrete solutions to address racial disparities in the jury selection process. My name is Theresa Coney, and I'm testifying on behalf of the Committee for Public Council Services. As their racial equity training lead, it is my responsibility to study how race and bias impacts each of us and skews the balance of the justice scales within our court systems. Who we are and how we became who we are is in inextricably linked to how we see the world.
This is the reality that causes what we know as implicit bias. As bias a bias that exists for us all that we all act upon and that we all don't realize is there. Implicit bias creates a myriad of problems in our court system. We all know the statistics, the disproportional incarceration American Americans, the removal of their children, the policing of mental health crises in their communities, the rules preventing discrimination and pre story challenges are one of the means that we have in the courtroom to help ensure that bias is weeded out and statistics like these do not her, but, obviously, it's not working to address implicit bias, at least not in the way that it should. House bill 1651 changes that. It allows, counsel to object to preemptory challenges without having to prove intentional discrimination.
It allows judges to evaluate dismissal of a juror in light of the totality of the circumstances, bringing awareness to how implicit bias impacts2139 process and concrete solutions to address it. As a prosecutor for more than 10 years, I charge new prosecutors in my office telling them that it their duty to ensure justice. And as a public distinct, defender standing in community with you today, I believe that our duty is much the same. This statute allows us an opportunity to ensure that the scales of justice actually began to balance. It gives our communities faith in our justice system. It acknowledges that we all have lived2170 experience that brings value to the conversation and should be respected. It allows our system to catch2176 up with the statistics. With the studies and with the everyday reality that bias exists.
Chief justice Ralph Gants called upon us to root out unconscious bias in the courtrooms. He said that justice is a team effort and that the legislatures were partners on that team. He said to bin the arc of the moral universe toward justice takes many. Today, it takes you. Let's help balance the scales and bend the arc let's live up to the legacy that he had for our court systems to value the common the values that we have as a commonwealth and the promise that is our America. A justice system with liberty and justice for all. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today regarding House Bill 1851. I'm happy to answer any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thanks so much, Tony. Kony. Are there any questions from the committee members? Okay. Thank very much.
SPEAKER16 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - The next bill before us is house 15 22 followed by reps of gentile. And now relative to the uniform electronic legal material act. We have Sarah Mona Lam McMahon here.
SARA MONALEA MCMAHON - LAW LIBRARIANS OF NEW ENGLAND - HB 1522 - Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and members of the drink committee. My name is Sara Monalea McMahon I am here today as the president of the Law Librarians of New England, LLNE, to testify in support of age 15 20 to the uniform2268 electronic legal material act, UELMA. LLNE is an organization of over 250 members, representing academic library federal and state courts and agencies, county and public law libraries, corporate legal departments, publishers, vendors, private law firms in the six New England States. We are a Chapter of2289 the American Association of Law Libraries.2291 I'd like to thank you for the2293 opportunity to testify in support of this today.
LLNE strongly urges the committee to approve UELMA, which will ensure that Massachusetts online state legal material deemed official will be preserved and made permanently available to the public in an unaltered form. As more information becomes available online, people come to expect access anytime from anywhere. And in our role as librarians, we are expected to provide access to those we serve judges, attorneys, self represented litigants, researchers, and citizens like you to trust worthy legal material that is authentic, verified, and unaltered. As governments reduce print formats in favor of providing online legal material, the concern for authenticate online may legal material is higher.
If online legal material is not authenticated, verified, and unaltered, then courts may not accept sites online materials, researchers may not be able to rely on online materials and publishers may not accept citations. UELMA provides the framework to ensure that online state legal material deemed official will be preserved and made permanently available to the public in an unaltered form. UELMA covers a range of material, including the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, session law the general laws, state agency rules and decisions, other material published in the Massachusetts register or the code of Massachusetts regulations and reported decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court, the appeals court, and the Massachusetts trial court.
UELMA has been passed in 22 States as well as Washington, DC, and the US Virgin Islands. It provides the principles but leaves it up to the state to determine the best ways to ensure that official legal material is reliable online. With the adoption of UELMA, Massachusetts will establish a self as a leader2406 among states that have recognized that official electronic legal material must be authenticated, preserved, and made permanently available the public, which further promotes access to justice for all. UELMA is supported nationally by the uniform law Commission, the American of law libraries and the American Bar Association. LLNE implores the committee to report favorably on 18 22. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you so much for your testimony. Any questions from the committee members? Thank you very much. You. I ceded, representative Gentile is here representing. Did you want to testify?
REP GENTILE - HB 1522 - Thank you. You, Chair Eldridge, and, good afternoon Chair Day. Good to see you both. I'm here to actually Testifying the bill that you just heard testimony from, bill that I filed, house 1522, the act, r relative to the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act. And, this legislation would provide the Commonwealth with a useful approach to authentication and preservation, electronic legal material. The goals outlined in the act, to enable the end user to verify the trustworthiness of the legal material they're using and to provide a framework for states to preserve their legal material and perpetuity. It would, require that official electronic legal material be authenticated by providing a method to determine it's that it's an altar It would preserve preserved either an electronic or print form and be accessible for use by the public on a permanent basis.
Adopting the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act, Massachusetts would establish a forward thinking digital preservation framework for official, electronic legal materials. The availability of government information facilitates transparency, accountability, provides widespread access essential information and encourages citizen participation. 24 other states, including California and Connecticut, as well2542 as Texas have already enacted this legislation. And by doing so, we would prepare for the day when code of mass regulation, our general laws be published digitally, and perhaps not in print warm way of the future. So you just heard for the prior, I've submitted written testimony as well, and you very much for allowing me to come in out of turn today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for a representative. Any questions from the committee? Thank you very much.
SPEAKER18 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - The next bill is house 1671, followed Ruperson McKenna, an act grant granting Indian tribes access to the Massachusetts Court. We have the panel from the nip Nipmuck tribe, Kenneth White, and Gary McCann.
KEN WHITE - CHAUBUNAGUNGAMAUG NIPMUCK TRIBAL COUNCIL - HB 1671 - Good afternoon. Thank you for, for this hearing. I want to thank, well, my name is Ken White. I'm chair of the Chaubunagungamaug Nipmuck tribal council. I want to thank the representative of McKenna and Durant, for filing bill H1671. And, the bill needs to be amended as it's written now and, representative of fill you in on those details. Several years ago, me and members of a tribal council, had a hearing at the, state land court. We were looking into a Springfield state park that was shut down due to, monetary reasons. We were wondering if the state would give it back to the original inhabitants which would be us. And we would then take care of it.
The judge didn't ask where our attorney was. And we said we're a state acknowledged tribe. I know we have our own tribal government. And we were representing ourselves. And his, reply to that was, like, come back when you get and this was very disrespectful that we thought. And during the last several years, we've been I feel we've been doing deal a lot of disrespect. one of them recently on May 6, 2022. The state has appealed court and formed the tribe that there were state tax statutes stating possible penalties related to fraud. Which was not the case. We felt very intimidated by this action, and we only seek to voice our opinion before the Massachusetts court. That was all we were looking for. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much, sir. Do wish to testify? Yes. Yes. I do.
GARY MCCANN - CHAUBUNAGUNGAMAUG NIPMUCK TRIBAL COUNCIL - HB 1671 - So my name is, Gary McCann. I'm assisting, chairman White's policy consultant for the Nipmuck intertribal Committee on Deer Island. Want to thank, Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, the members of the committee. I have three points. I'll summarize the three points and then go back to the details. Number one, the support for the bill, and want2791 to thank the committee for allowing the potential of access to the courts of Massachusetts to Indian tribes. Number two, the bill needs amended. And number three, there's broader reform needed in terms of the relationship, with the courts based on the experience. Point number one, support for the bill. Thanks to representative McKenna and Durant, for filing the bill.
The state has a long history with Native Americans. The state nationally is recognized for its role in Thanksgiving. The state seal and flag have a native American on it So it would make sense to have the courts be open to the tribes that has played such an important role in Massachusetts history and, part, point and part of the state because the tribes are clearly here today and to collect seeking access to justice, but in at times, as the chairman has testified, not only in the current Long Island litigation, but previously, They've just been pushed out, intimidated, and have just walked away. So for the state to say, you're welcome to participate in our court system is an important step forward. You know, as we go back to the history, the colonies set up a court system, in 1635.
And until now, there's never been a cleared defined actual guaranteed access to the to the system. And so this would be a great historic step for the state legislature to take. As far as the federal, you know, the constitution, the 91780 constitution guarantees access to justice and they shouldn't be disbarred because of lack of financial resources. So to demand the tribe to have the finances to hire a lawyer, you're just going to exclude them because if tribe like Chaubunagungamaug doesn't have a revenue stream either from the state or the feds, then they're effectively buying them for the court indirectly. And now the federal system in 1966 provided, access to the courts through, US code 201362, but there's nothing, it didn't talk about states.
So there is a formula that's out there doesn't2914 need to be amending because the commission on Indian Affairs as a2918 gatekeeper, which, at times, has actually violated the law. So having2922 a agency that's violated the law to determine who the plaintiff is going to be in cases is contrary to the efforts that we're trying to make In addition, there's broader reform needed. We've had that demonstrate an explanatory memo. We'll, provide2936 that to the committee of things that have gone wrong2938 in the current litigation. Before the courts. So, happy to answer any questions and hope that the record will stay open in time for us to get the information. We kind of got to the last minute notice to the hearing. So we're hoping that the record can remain open that we can provide information that we weren't able to put in together in in time for today's hearing. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Sure. Thank you, Mr. McCann. Thank you, Mr. White. We'll make sure the record stays open. Any questions from the committee members? K. You very much for your coming for the committee. Thank you.
SPEAKER20 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - The next bill2974 oh, excuse me. I think Virtually, we have reps at Ramos. Representative Ramos.
REP RAMOS - HB 1727 - afternoon, Mr. chairman, and good afternoon. To the members of your honorable committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on House Bill 1727. Otherwise known as an Act establishing a commission to study judicial accountability in the Commonwealth This is a bill that was filed jointly with my Fran and colleague, the gentleman for Springfield, chairman of public safety, Carlos González, and it would create a special commission, judicial accountability to study the nomination selection, and appointment and oversight of judges in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to develop recommendations to improve accountability, including reappointment standards for judges.
Massachusetts, federal law is governing the length and, appointment of judges were established in when the when the constitution of Massachusetts was created in 1780 and a lot has changed in those two 43 years. In fact, the last, amendment to the, appointment of judges was in 1972 when there was an amendment to the constitution which, mandated the judges retire before the age of 70. And there's still no review or oversight process judges in the Commonwealth, unlike a lot of other states. In fact, Massachusetts is one of only seven states that does not have, does not require elections for judges. And I don't believe that judges should be elected, but I do believe that there should be some sort of a review and oversight process.
For those judges that we have, on the bench. Most states that don't have elections have reappointment processes. For example, Connecticut all judges are chosen through a merit selection process involving a nomination commission similar to the governor's council. And the initial term of a judge is eight years. After those eight years, a commission reviews the judge's performance, and then the governor nominates the judge for re for retention subject to the approval of the state legislature. In Delaware, our judges are chosen to a similar process, a similar committee, and the initial term is 12 years. And then an incumbent judge would have to reapply for nomination, by the governor after those 12 years.
And so, again, this this bill is intended to create a process where we will have, oversight in and review of judges so that they can be reappointed. The other issue, that we have with the judges is the way that it doesn't reflect the overall population of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, right now, the population of the Commonwealth is approximately 30% people of color. And by contrast, the number of judges that are on the bench are less than 10% And so because these judges have, you know, like, essentially lifetime appointments, there's that very much opportunity for turnaround. And so That's another reason why I'm advocating for this bill,3162 and I'm hopeful that your honorable committee will give this bill in, a positive recommendation. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for a representative. Any questions from the committee? Thank you very much.
SPEAKER21 - Excuse me.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Next bill is3178 house 1798 by by representative. Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. Next person on house 1671, Jean Luc harri. My apologies on that. Jean Luc Perit, not here. Okay? Okay. Next bill, house 1798 filed by reps that have livingstone and act establishing a jury duty exemption for breastfeed parents, Barbara Kim.
BARBARA KIM- CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1798 - Thank you chair day, and chair Aldridge. My name is Barbara Kim. I'm a resident of Maldon, in thank you to members of the committee for allowing me to speak today in support of H.1798 an act establishing a jury the exemption for breastfeeding parents. When I was seven months pregnant, I was called for jury duty, and I was able to get a medical exemption It took two phone calls waiting, the phone for 30 minutes each time with my primary care provider. one email with my medical care provider. And at that time, due to COVID, I had to print3265 out my medical exemption and mail in my medical exemption. So this is an opportunity to, bypass that medical exemption for breastfeeding parents. I want to take this time today to talk about the, the physical demands and the mechanics of pumping.
So I brought today with you the bag that it takes to pump. And so if you are going into a courthouse, you'd have your backpack with your laptop You'd have your lunch, and then you'd have this bag as well. You would need to find the lactation room in the courthouse. You hope it has a refrigerator. You would need to have 20 minutes to pump at least 10 minutes to set up another 10 minutes to wash and hope that all the facilities are there. Then you hope it's quite enough and calm enough that you can do the mechanics of doing this. And then you need to have your bag that has an ice pack because you probably have traveled over an hour to get to a courthouse. So this is the physical mechanics of pumping. In order to pump, you have to drink a lot of water in order for the breast milk to come out of your body. So you have to drink at least four-20 ounce bottles of water to die.
When you drink that much water, you then need to go to the bathroom, probably at least once an hour. None of these things are conducive to being on a jury duty. It's just a time in someone's life where you are really not in control of your body. You have to pump when your body says you need to pump. You need to go to the bathroom when you need to go to the bathroom. And that is just the physical person trying to provide sustenance for their newborn infant. The other part of this is their infants. Ask them when the last night time they got a full night's sleep. When you have a newborn child, you count your sleep in minutes. So again, just creating this opportunity, these people are eligible per PFML. They are eligible for family bonding leave, and this act will make our court system more family friendly. So I urge you to report H.1798, favorably from committee. And, again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great, miss Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions from the committee members? Okay. Thank you for walking us through that. Ship. So the next bill we have before us is seven senate 1033 filed by Senator Lewis in Act Providing for the development of3453 a graduate judicial Training School, Vincent Dixon. Vincent Dixon.
VINCENT LAWRENCE DIXON - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1033 - HB 1449 - SB 1032 - SB 1031 - SB 905 - Yeah. My state rep. My name is Vincent Lawrence Dixon, 60 Lake St Unit, Winchester, Mass 01890. These words are an umbrella covering H.1449, S.1032, S.1031, and S.1033, distinct in their provisions, but part of a broader range of reforms. They're actually part of a broader package that I've developed, that I call an expanded Massachusetts agenda, in effect a series of respectful and carefully drawn reforms. Our legal systems have been facing many different challenges, and the COVID 19 pandemic surely has created even more ranging from the electronic communications formats to various public health considerations. H.1449 provides for the training and continue education of judges.
And legal hearing officers and our present system across a wide area of judicial operations, legal hearing officers, and boards, and commissions. There a need for quality and higher quality of legal understanding. This particular bill sets broader requirements regarding these standards. S.1032, improvement of required standards of clerk magistrates, sets improvement of required standards, including full establishment of requirements to have an earned legal degree and improves the quality by providing useful incentives. Grand Jerry Commission, looks at the effectiveness and integrity of the Grand Jerry system, which has been questioned, and a range of solutions enacted across the 50 states of the United States.
And available law journal auto looks at these different solutions and provides suggested thinking that can assist the establishment of a useful commission. S.1033 to pioneer a graduate judicial training school would be to move our entire legal system forward, I believe, in numerous ways further improving the quality of our entire legal system. I also wish to be joined to supporting S.905 that eliminates fees on the right to council came across this, talking to Santa Barrett and others. And in effect, if you think about it, the charging of a fee on indigent clients is a bit like a poll tax, which is unconstitutional in a broader sense of it.
Just as the introduction of professional law goals improve the quality of lawyers, and that of the case study method, improving the quality of legal instruction, there are other comparable developments that we might consider. The four bills of mine addressed in this particular hearing provide opportunities to improve our legal processes. I am a historian, not3630 a lawyer, but I've observed a great deal of legal evolution over the course of my life and looking at history over time. And, it's an interesting interSection is how Commonwealth has developed. I'd ask you to consider these bills, to move one or more of them, and I'd be happy to talk to you further either here or at a later point because I think these would be constructive reforms. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you so much, Mr. Dixon. Any questions from the community members? Thank you very much.
SPEAKER23 - Thank you. Mhmm.
SPEAKER1 - The next bill before us is senate 1131 filed by Sarah Barr, an act of strengthen rules governing attorney conduct, penalties for misconduct. First person we have signed up is Georgia Critic goose. Good afternoon.
GEORGIA KRITIKOS - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1131 - Thank you. Senate members and other officials for letting3693 me speak in the house. My name is Georgia Kritikos from Haverhill Massachusetts. I'm here to testify. Against the misconduct of the Salem Probate Court in Salem, Massachusetts. Docket number ES10W2432C Kritikos Vs Derosa. Is a never ending litigation that is under investigation. Round two. Since 2018, It's been going on for five years. No peace in my family. I haven't seen my son in nine months. My mom has spent a $150,000 We have the best information, evidence, same position. I have four jobs. I'm really tired. My family has been traumatized.
I've had five of the best lawyers in Massachusetts. One of the lawyers that we had to release said Georgia, who buried you like this? I'm going to try to unburry you. Most favored lawyer in probate, Massachusetts Salem, Most beloved. That's how my other lawyers presented this lawyer. Most respected, most loved. Who buried you like this? Senate Bill 1131 presented by Senator Tarr is accurate by demonstration and description in my case alone, and I've researched other cases in the same exact thing. Evidence voluminous of deceit, cover ups, lies under oaths, files up to $60 and $80,000 missing for months.
One just has to look at the case, Kritikos Vs Derosa, to find child abuse, misconduct, and cover ups. My head lawyer in court said this case has more lies than the one gate scandal. And everyone laughs. Like, it's a joke. The bell presented by Senator Tarr explains exactly the corruption in Massachusetts courts that gives families heart breaking troubles and economic hardships. Massachusetts courts have lost value and integrity for its citizens, send the docket 1131, will solve many problems in Massachusetts Courts. Passing the bill will add value and integrity in the court system, even among its own family members, they call each other brothers and sisters. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Miss Critigos, you have reached your three minutes. So if you could just summarize
KRITIKOS - Yeah. Law and order needs to be reinstated in Massachusetts. No one's above the law in this country. Please help pass this bill. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank so much. Any questions for the committee? And thank you very much. Now we have, on the same bill of panel. So Sandra Lundgren, John Lundgren, and David Konstantzo.
Good afternoon Confused and we don't know how this works.
SANDRA LUNDGREN - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1131 - Thank you. I'd first like to say that Mass Senate Bill 1131 is crucial. This bill is already clearly defined in the four corners of the rules of professional conduct yet it is completely ignored and violated repeatedly. In our instance alone, Lundgren versus Robert Hoffer and Robert Berluti, over six licensed attorneys of the Commonwealth have committed perjury, misrepresented material evidence, suppressed evidence, and guilty of numerous ethical violations. Unfortunately, these attorneys are protected at every entity, including the border bar overseers, the state ethics commission, the court clerk and3982 the judges involved in this matter. As recently of July tickets of service in both superior court and the appeals court, which is recognized by both courts, but no accountability still.
The BBO fails to hold this corruption in these dirty attorneys accountable due to the certain conflict of interest. The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission opened an investigation into these attorneys. However, the investigator was forced by her superiors. To close the investigation without being able to obtain the requested material evidence. The com comfort level of the attorneys in Massachusetts we have dealt with is brazen and obvious. We have been denied required hearings by judges We were violated by the judge at the board of industrial accident due to her willful misconduct and recently violated by a superior court judge for her willful misconduct and granting a motion for summary judgment to the defendants who entered the courtroom with unclean hands and committed perjury in the judicial proceedings. A judge cannot grant a motion for summary judgment unless all the facts are undisputed.
The statement of material facts were proven false. With powerful material evidence contained to all of my husband's providers in attempt to collect his medical records when they were hired when he contracted state reported work related legionnaires disease. However, we have in our possession and would like to submit to the court sworn affidavits and letters from every single one of my husband's provider that state neither one of his hired counsel ever requested or obtained his medical records from their facilities. And these defendants are unable to produce. We are pro say and have no money. Yet against these attorneys, there have been eight attorneys to withdraw from representing the defendant attorneys in question because this case is extremely viable, and the corruption must end today. Therefore, we are asking that you support that, you know, this mass senate bill 1131 to hold these dirty attorneys accountable. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for your testimony, Miss Lundgren. Trevor, you want to testify also? I think I'm going to just submit my testimony right Sure. Thank you, sir. Any questions from the committee members? Okay. Thank you very much for coming for the committee.
SPEAKER26 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Oh, did you want to Fisir?
SPEAKER23 - I'm sorry.
DAVID CONSTANTZO - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1131 - My name is David. I'm here to support Senate Bill 1131 as well. I'm not only a layman, but I'm a close friend with the Lundgren family for more than 20 years. I'm very familiar with this case. Hearing such as this one today are an important mechanism for addressing grievances and seeking accountability. Therefore, the evidence that we have, discovered, collected, and submitted to the courts to date clearly demonstrate that these attorneys routinely failed to act with appropriate skills, honesty, and diligence and the performance of their sworn duties to uphold the law. These attorneys have highly protected by the board of our overseers and the Massachusetts state ethics4186 commission due to the conflict of interests and certain corruptions at these entities.
Collection of all medical records by an attorney representing that client in an industrial accident, is the ultimate primer when submitting direct evidence to a court. I have repeatedly reviewed, printed, and witnessed, miss Lundgren 's concrete, material evidence in this matter, along with, clear violation professional and ethical rules of conduct, for attorneys who, practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Additionally, I have witnessed the untruthful answers to the interrogatories and their gross production of documents. We have repeatedly proven faults to the courts over and over. These attorneys have committed perjury fraudulently supported medical, evidence in the DIA files with the court and the Massachusetts border by overseers.
I have also seen evidence of a judge's willful misconduct and intentional disregard the content of their workman's compensation filed in the DA matter. By the judge, judge's failure to acknowledge their requested medical records by both in partial and independent doctors. They've also neglected to recognize an entire week's worth of hospitalizations, which was repeatedly discussed yet. The records were never obtained. The judges also failed to recognize the triplication of mental health records4291 and more contained in the DIA files. Ladies and gentlemen, our justice system is corrupt and broken. Today, we are collectively asking for your support. In this Senate bill to hold these attorneys and the officers of the court to be held accountable for their egregious, willful neglect. Miss conduct and ethical violations of their oath. I thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you so much for your testimony. Thanks to the three of you coming for the committee. Any questions in the committee? Okay. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER26 - How do we submit a it is. I'm sorry. So you said that we can stay ahead of this. I have a binder that I would like to submit.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
SPEAKER26 - Thank you so much.
SPEAKER1 - We have another panel on the bill, Paula Estee, Joyce Thomas Sally, and Grace Marie, Thomas Sally.
GRACE-MARIE THOMAS SALLY - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1131 - Hello? Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Senate Eldridge, and Representative chair as well. And the and the committee. My name is Grace Marie Thomas Sally, and my sister and I drafted this bill and presented it to, to Senator Bruce Tarr. The name of the bill, as you know, is S.1131 and it's an act to strengthen rules governing attorney conduct and penalties for misconduct As I said, my name is Grace-Marie Thomas Sally. I'm from Salisbury Beach Mass. We bought a beautiful place in Salisbury. A restaurant and renamed it Monterey Cafe Restaurant. I paid off my mortgage. I paid my taxes. I did everything I had to do
However, I ended up losing my home, my restaurant, my prop and it was auctioned off for $775,000 last year. And it was all because the town of Salisbury Attorneys lied in court. Very simple eye. They told every court, 20 courts. I counted them. That this sewer betterment was voted in in 1992 under oath in it wasn't. It was 1982. We also found out when we started investigating, we had clean title. And because the because the attorneys claimed it was 92, we were the owners because we bought it in 91. But we started to discover, and we found out from the EPA. Thank god. That project was a 100% grant funded. By the EPA, the state, and USDA. We brought it before the court. We brought it to the Judge Piper.
He didn't want to see the evidence. When they talked about what's going on in the judicial system, I have been in the court since 1995, trying to keep my home and my restaurant. And I lost it, even though I paid my more and taxes. The attorneys have been getting away with lying in court. One actually came over and snicker Kurt Fliegauf. I'll never forget it. He said, see, I told you we can do what we want. We have to stop this. This is not about good attorneys. I know good attorneys. This is about the bad apples that are out there. We have to stop it and unite. The people who the ones who were being harmed, we are the victims of these corrupt attorneys. It's not the court that's wrong. It's the people in it who have malice and unclean hands. I just pray that other people don't suffer like we have suffered the nightmare we've lived for the past 27 years. Now my sister Joyce. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much.
JOYCE THOMAS SALLY - CONCERNED CITIZEN - SB 1131 - Hi. As you said, I'm Joyce Thomas Sally. I want to thank, Bruce Tarr for petitioning us absent a Bill. Thank you Representative Michael Day and Eldridge. The Senate bill, 1131, enacted strengthen rules governing attorney conduct penalties from misconduct is a very, very important bill. As race when we said we know many honest attorneys. Many honest attorneys who lose in the court because they're fighting corrupt attorneys. And it seems to me that attorneys who have been hired by people who have a lot of money, decades seem to prevail even though they're not submitting the truth and evidence. And that's a very sad thing for all of us to I'm not very wealthy. The purpose of this petition is to have legislation to allow damages and little actions by penalizing drug attorneys who commit misconduct, guilty of and they're guilty of deceit of collusion with the intent the intended to see the judge of the tribunal.
And with this Senate bill, it also says If they failed to correct false statements of material fact and law made to tribunal, that would make them accountable. I understand in an attorney can make a mistake. We all could say the wrong thing by mistake, but we're tie we're going after attorneys who are deceptive intentionally. They strive on it, and they gloat that they prevailed at any price. They'll do anything to have you lose. And in our case, they did re we did lose. I hope that this legislation will help other message Houston's residents do not go through what we have gone through in our press from justice. We've gone to many, many, many courts, including bankruptcy court. And I lost. I lost. Actually, when I went, I lost another house, my family home, I've been I've it's been a nightmare because the bankruptcy judge went along with the banquet judge's decision that there was a lien on that property and there wasn't a lien.
That used the assessment date in 92, even though we proved it was 1982. And I lost everything. I lost my retirement money. I lost everything I've had. And now I'm in apartment, but I don't want other people, and I don't want the next generation to suffer like we've gone through. In the courtroom, when we started off with this in the federal court, we went to them locally. I saw the wall with all the all the sayings, all the quotes. Justice Brandeis has the quote, Justice is truth in action, and I believed it I was hopeful, but I found the federal court judge gave the town of Salisbury attorneys absolute immunity, even though I proved that they lied in court, absolute immunity. And that was it. That was the end of4746 us. And our house our house got our property got auctioned off. And my other house has been a nice my family home has been a nightmare. I have so many things I'd like to say to you It's a very emotional time. We ask that you do the right decision so that decisions in court are decided on the truth. Thank you very much. I appreciate your my time very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, sir.
SPEAKER28 - Thank you so much.
SPEAKER29 - Thank you.
SPEAKER28 - You can stop it for others.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much.
SPEAKER28 - Thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - Excuse me. The next bill for for us is Senate987, filed by Former State Center, Ann Goby, in act establishing a commission to study judicial accountability in the Commonwealth. Think virtually we have Mohan Harrahar. Mohan Harrahar.4802
SPEAKER7 - Nope. Okay.
4814 SPEAKER14814 -4814 Okay.4814 The next bill will force house 1453, senate 991, filed by set of Decker. Former Senator Goby and act concerning furnishing transcripts of notes and fees. We have a number of panels. The first panel Is Buck Ewing, Barbara Riordan, and Jennifer Wutasek? Good afternoon. Please go ahead.
BUCK EWING - CAMBRIDGE TRANSCRIPTIONS - HB 1453 - SB 991 - Good afternoon, chairman Eldridge, chairman Day and4861 members of the judiciary committee. My name is Buck4865 Ewing, and I am proud to testify in favor of H 1453 and S.991. I'm an army veteran and owner of Cambridge transcriptions. I'm one of 63 approved court transcribers, and my company has been certifying, court transcripts for 28 years. What is an approved court transcriber? We are small group of highly skilled Transcribers, all self-employed business owners who have been carefully vetted by the office of transcription services, to transcribe all legal proceedings in all courts throughout the commonwealth at $3 a page. We are all struggling to make end meet
My colleagues are here behind me. We have four main arguments. Number One. Section 88 has not been changed in 35 years. That's almost four decades, one third of a century, practically one's entire working career. It is daunting to have the time, energy, and money to conduct two year legislative efforts. Number Two, inflation. The consumer price index and Federal Reserve Bank Inflation calculators equate $3 in 1988 to $7.84 today. That's a 161% in increase. We are only asking for a 67% increase less than half. We are not asking for $4.84. We're only asking for $2. Number 3, work is vastly different today. The 1988 transcripts are produced by employee court reporters who took notes in court and transcribed their notes out of court at $3 a page.
Today, transcripts are transcribed from audio recordings out of court at $3 per page. Without a salary, it is difficult to live on $3 a page. Number four, after our bills were issued, we agreed with the CPCS to a flat rate of $5 for the original and copies, which would eliminate some billing errors and reduce CPS staff time. Only one number would have to be entered into the rebill, the number of pages. Based on these four arguments, we offer we offer a fair, long overdue bill. Today, you will5006 hear about challenges of transcribing from audio, the history of the statute. Legislative pay increases, work as a work as a former, court reporter, and now as an approved, court transcribed effect of living costs, why we are likely overlooked, the cost of running a business, and the up much for your time SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER10 - Good afternoon.
BARBARA REARDON - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1453 - SB 991 - German Eldridge Day in the committee members. My name is Barbara Reardon. I live in West Brookfield. I believe I'm the oldest5058 drug in this fight, so time is5060 of the essence. I've been a legal transcriber for over 40 years and it approved court transcribers since 2017. I would like to point out just some of the many challenges we face in producing trans from audio recordings. We were not present in the courtroom, but we are tasked with informing the reader of the transcript of every word spoken in the courtroom. This includes the appeals court, the SJC, judges, lawyers, and pro se litigants. Producing the official record includes hours of research for which we are not compensated. We must accurately identify speaker when there are multiple lawyers who sometimes speak over each other, and some of whom love to wander around the courtroom with no regard to microphone placement.
We often struggle with poor audio and deadlines that are difficult to meet resulting in late nights weekends. Because we are a small group, workload is overwhelming. There simply is not enough of us. The trial court needs to attract more scribers to carry the log, but that is difficult at the current rate. $3 per page in eight 1988 was a fair price to pay court reporters to produce transcripts after hours while still receiving a salary and benefits. It certainly is not in 2013 as a sole source of income.5148 I often think of the old adage, find a job that you love so much that you would do it for free. The ACTs are perilously close to doing just that. We all love our jobs, but the cost of doing business will soon put some of us out of business. The fact that we have not received an increase in 35 year is the single most compelling reason for this committee's favorable report in some in support of Amendment Section 88 and in acting Section 88A Thank you.
JENNIFER WITASZEK - CONCERNED CITIZEN - Good afternoon. Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and committee members. My name is Jennifer Witaszek. I live in Warren, Massachusetts, and I am one of the 63 approved court transcribers for the Massachusetts trial court. I would like to speak today about the history of this transcriber bill. My online research for Section 88 took me back to 1927 when the rate was portfolio, which is 100 words. At that time, the cost per dozen eggs was 45 cents. The rate portfolio ranged from 15 cents in 1927 to 50 cents in 1978. That's a 233% increase over 51 years. In 1988, the statute was amended to reflect5233 a page rate of $3 per page, and that's where we stand today. We are now in the longest stretch of time without an increase, 35 years. Our proposed legislation would update not only the financial compensation for approved court scribers, but it also5249 substitutes the word transcriber for stenographer, modernizes the language to be gender neutral.
And clears up confusion regarding copies of transcripts paid for by an indigent person or an indigent person's count The addition of Section 88A will ensure that approved court transcribers never again go 35 years without a pay raise by implementing automatic increases every five years that will be calculated to reflect changes in the consumer price index. Time is money. The work of a transcriber involves much more than you might think. No matter how fast we right, the amount of research that must be done adds a significant amount of time to our work. When you hear page rate, please understand that it is compensation5295 for the amount of time to produce that page, which goes far beyond typing and proofreading. A raise is long overdue. I respectfully urge you to report these bills out favorably so that we may receive a fair and just rate. Thank you listening to my testimony. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you all for your testimony.5313 Appreciate your time. Sure day.
DAY - Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Just a5317 quick question. And Ms. Reardon as a reformed wanderer, I take your point well on being in court. I and I apologize. I missed what you said. Did CPCS I know you've had discussions with CPCS on this. Have they come out with any position on this?
EWING - Yes. They're in favor of it. And the reason is because they were spending time taking errors that, caused increased issue issues in the CPCS and delivery time, they agreed to a flat rate, of $5.
DAY - Perfect. Thank Yep. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thanks again for coming for the committee. On the same bill, the next panel, Linda Wesson, Karen McGill and Christina O'Neil.
SPEAKER33 - Good afternoon.
CHRISTINE O'NEILL - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1453 - SB 991 - Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Christina O'Neil. I grew up in Rivera. I now5384 live in Winthrop, and I work down the5386 street at Suffolk Superior Court. Apparently, you can't take this girl out of Suffolk County. I've been working for the Commonwealth for close to 25 years. First, as an official court report and today as an approved transcriber. I'm proud of the work I do. I'm very grateful for this opportunity to address you on behalf of this bill. I'm guessing this is the first time most of you had a chance to put a face to the transcripts cross your desk many, many5416 times.
That should be expected because our work is done in our homes, in our offices, very much behind the scenes. It's likely also explains why a rate increase for our work product is also in the shadows. But make no mistake. While our work is done behind the scenes, our work product, those transcripts are very much front and center. Whether it's attorneys and parties reviewing depositions in preparation for trial, transcripts being used during trial to impeach what are to be read to a jury when witnesses are unavailable. And finally post trial, when appellate court judges and a attorneys review trial proceedings to make sure justice was served.
But clearly, justice has overlooked some of us as there has not been a page rate increase in over 35 years for those of us who do this important work. I don't think I need to tell you that costs have gone up for everything from a piece of plexiglass to a ride on my beloved blue line. Which in 1988 cost 50 cents, and today is five times that amount. We've all worked hard to help the trial court navigate through COVID 19, producing transcripts at an aggressive pace as the judicial system, heroic played a game of catch up. It's a demand we've been responding to for 35 years. Now it's time5513 for our compensation to touch up. I would implore you to report favorably on Bill H.1453. I thank once again5522 for this opportunity and your thoughtful5524 consideration.
LINDA WESSON - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1453 - SB 991 - Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Linda Wesson, and I live in Sagamore Beach, Massachusetts. I have been an approved court transcriber for 25 years. Imagine working for the same employer for 35 years and never seeing an increase in pay. Job expenses, supplies, electricity, and technology of forever rising, and it has become increasingly difficult to run a small business make ends meet. The reality is that the high cost of living is forcing many transcribers to choose different career paths to sustain their livelihoods. This financial strain threatens the very existence of this profession. We are a small group of 63 profession mostly women that are5574 the backbone of our legal system. The approved court transcribers you see on these panels today have over 300 years experience.
There are transcribers all over the state that are not here today they cannot afford to take time off of work. $3-page rate in 1988 was enacted to supplement a full time official court reporter who would have to after working 40 hours as a state employee with all the benefits. I want to emphasize the dire consequences the entire court system will face if you failed to implement this $2 per page increase, you will lose some of the most highly skilled and experienced court transcribers in Massachusetts, creating a backlog in the legal system. No one will be left on an already short list of approved court transcribers. It has been overwhelming to see how much support these bills have received, and I am here to advocate for the increase. This increase is not about fair compensation. It's an investment in retaining and attracting I strongly report that this bill be favorably reported out. That's the word. I'm sorry. To the Ways and Means Committee. Thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER14 - Thank you.
KAREN MCGILL - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1453 - SB 991 - Good afternoon, chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and members of the judiciary committee. My name is Karen McGill. I've been a freelance court reporter and transcriber since 1999. Some of my colleagues have eloquently explained to you our role with the trial court. The importance of concise and timely produced scripts in the judicial process and the arduous task of preparing those transcripts. For the wheels of justice, to continue to move along smoothly, there has to be skilled people who are willing to take on this task. However, many of our qualified Act member flatly refused to perform some of this work for the simple reason of the low page rate. My colleagues have laid out how costs have risen in general since 1988, so I won't belabor the point.
While doing some research for my speech, I researched some wage increases. I found that in 2017, legislatures passed a law that is now part of our state constitution, stating that the governor is required every two years to make compensation adjustments in the legislative base pay. The adjustments are based on changes in the median household income statewide and are tied to inflation. That same year, state senate president Rosenberg stated, quote, “Fair minded people will consider the fact that stipends for presiding offices have not changed for 33 years. Who works for the same amount 33 years later. Obviously, costs go up and they ought to be reflected in people's salaries as well.” Unquote. In 2021, while the people of the Commonwealth grappled with economic hardships.
Due to COVID 19, the legislature received its 3rd raise in as many legislative sessions. In 2022, House Mariano was quoted as saying, quote, “We're trying to move into the 21st century in how we pay people, unquote. As Mr. Rosenberg stated, who indeed works for the same amount 33 years later. And here we are 35 years later. These quotes reflect the need for wages to keep up with economic changes in an effort to retain the most qualified people. We are those people providing this vital service to all litigants. A fair page rate that reflects our diligence and professionalism is needed and the time is now. We understand these are tougher economic times. We're living them. To maintain the level of excellence that we provide, a rate that is commensurate with our skill set, and brings us into the 21st century is long overdue. The only way for us to receive that is with your support. I thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you very much for your testimony coming before the committee. Any questions from the committee? K. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it. The next panel on this bill, Nicole Gagnon, Paula, Pietrella, and Richard.
PAULA PIETRELLA - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1453 - SB 991 - Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and members of the committee. Thank you for letting me speak today. My name is Paula Pietrella, and I5894 live in Salem, Massachusetts. I have lived in Massachusetts my entire life. I am testifying today in support of Bill H.1453, in its companion bill S.991 an act concerning furnishing transcripts of notes and fees. I want to give you a brief history of my work as a court reporter and as an approved court transcriber. In 1988, I worked as a per diem court reporter for the trial court and traveled in almost every county in this state. I was paid a daily rate for my appearance and if a transcript needed to be produced, I received a rate of $3 per page.
Five years later, in 1993, I was hired by the trial court. To work as a full time official court reporter and worked primarily in Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston. And worked primarily oh, sir. And in 2011, I moved to the North Shore and worked another seven years in Middlesex, Superior Court in Woburn. And finally, in County Superior Court in Salem. I was paid to produce a transcript at $3 per page. In 2018, trial court eliminated the position of the official court reporter. So I joined the Office of Transportation Services as one of 63 approved court transcribers. I no longer received a salary with benefits, but I would still be producing transcripts at rate of $3 per page. In 2019, I was hired by the Essex County District Attorneys is to work one day a week as one of three court reporters.
That cover grand jury proceedings. And guess what? The rate to produce a transcript from those proceedings is still $3 a page. My entire career from 1988 to present has been spent producing transcripts for the trial court at $3 per page. You might say, why do I continue working? For the same rate over 35 years. Well, the most important thing I can say is I love what I do. I love taking the spoken word putting it down on paper and creating a transcript. I have spent more time in the courtroom than the us in this country works. It has been a fascinating career. I am not looking for the top wage that someone with my variance deserves, but I am looking for a wage that is fair and just, and I would strongly urge you to report these benefits out favorably. Thank you for your time and attention. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER36 - Positive. So I apologize.
NICOLE GAGNON - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1453 - SB 991 - Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Nicole Gagnon. In 1998, I started working in the court system as an official court reporter, taking the verbatim record and producing transcripts. The page rate then, as you've heard, was $3. In fact, since 1988, that's 35 years. The page rate has never increased. Now I come to you 25 years later to ask on behalf of myself and those transcribing for the court system to increase this pay date. Not only has the rate never increased, but the work has become much more difficult. When I was a court reporter, I was in the courtroom creating a clear and concise record.
Now that we transcribe from a digital recording system, we face a multitude of challenges. For example, attorneys speak away from microphones making it hard to hear. They talk over one another and the judge. They start a question before the witness has finished the answer. Sidebars for the most part are inaudible. As a court reporter, I would immediately put a stop to this, but as a transcriber, we get what we get. More time is required to make out audio, identify look up spellings of witness names, addresses, and case sites. It now takes me twice as long to produce a page of transcription yet the $3 rate remains, and we are paid by the page, not the hour. $3 a page is just not sustainable in today's economy.
To put it into perspective, in 1988, a gallon of milk was a $1.5. Now it's 2.88. A dozen eggs 79 cents. Now it's $5.20. It cost 50 cents to ride the train to work. And now today, it was 2.40. I could go on and on, and at every example, the cost6160 has doubled and off on tripled, yet the page rate remains. My 22 year old daughter may more money waiting tables at the Yard House restaurant in three hours than I do transcribing in my office. I love my job. I love working for the courts. I had never regretted my decision to do this work, and I hope you see your way clear. To pass this legislation so that myself and those with me today are financially able to continue the work love. I thank you for your time.
RICHARD LARUE - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1453 - SB 991 - Good afternoon, chairman Eldridge, chairman Day, and members of the committee. Thank you for taking the time to review. Our submission and consider our position regarding Bill's H.1453 and S.991. My name is Richard LaRue. I live in Attleboro, Massachusetts. I'm youthful compared to some others in this profession. I've been a court reporter since 2004. I was an official court reporter for the state of Massachusetts, and now I'm self employed as a per diem court reporter running my own business. I want to adjust the issue of impact on small businesses such as mine. The $3 page rate, which has been, frozen in time since 1988.
$3 in 1988 is worth about $7.84, and today's money. The $3-page rate is non sustainable with the high cost of running a business In 1988, statute 88 governed the page rate for official court reporters who were employees of the commonwealth with full benefit of a state employee, salary, pension, vacation, and sick pay. In 2018, the Commonwealth eliminated the position of official court reporter and replaced them us with an Electronic Digital Recording System. With no official court reporters in Massachusetts, per diem court reporters are hired for many things6279 and trials, no salary, no vacation, or sick pay, we are independent contractors responsible for all costs of purchasing and maintaining our own equipment, software.
Keeping up with technology, paying self employment and other taxes, to say nothing but funding our own retirement. Unlike the $3 paid rate, our cost of living has not been froze in time, I wish. You may have heard people say it's not about the money, but frankly, it is. Don't get me wrong as you've heard from others. I love my job. I love learning new things and being involved with the actual system, but we have to make a living, a sustainable living. Please consider supporting H.1453 and S.991. The two bills before the joint committee Judy Sherry. I believe this would be fair and appropriate. It would mean so much to the hardworking people producing these transcripts. Thank you again for your time and attention. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much. Appreciate you coming for the committee to testify. Any questions from the committee? K. Thank you so much. Next person sign up on the same bill is Jerry Shea. Jerry Shaikh.
SPEAKER13 - Good afternoon.
GERALDINE SHEA - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1453 - SB 991 - Good afternoon. Thank you for your time today. My name is Jerry Shea. I live in Swampscott I'm one of 63 approved court transcribers. Although I became an approved court transcriber in 2017, I've been transcribing legal proceedings for 48 years. I want to address how the language in the current6385 bill is being redrafted. In 2011 because of the recession of 2007 through 2010. This commonwealth in the entire Nation felt the economic pressure of that6398 recession and changes were made to Section 88. While the page6402 rate of $3 per page for the original remained the same.
The copy page rate for transcripts provided to indigent parties and council for indigent parties was reduced from a dollar per page to 10 cents per page. A whopping 90% cut Because of that, many transcribers refused to accept CPCS work only accepting private pay assignments. Chair Day. You asked back about the our relationship with CPCS, and we had came to an agreement on a flat rate, eliminating the cost of a copy. It simplified the billing process, saving time of the CPCS staff. And eliminating confusing language in the bill. Although paper copy orders are rare, when requested, there's no additional cost to CPCS. The approved court transcriber as they have always done will print and mail a paper copy to the indigent person and absorb those non reimbursable costs.
For all costs, for all transcripts not paid for by CPCS, the current language in the statute is $3 for the original and $1 per copy. We seek to amend that to $5 for the original and $1.65 65 per copy. That's6480 on private pay. As part of the redrafting Section 88, Section 88A6486 provides6486 for a review of the page rate6488 every five years based on the consumer price index, starting in 2028. But since this will become law in 2024, that date will change 2029. And this 88 day saves us from having to appear here to at every year to ask for a raise. I personally know of no one who has not received a pay rate increase in 35 years. Only you have the power to change that. I thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much, Kim, for the committee. Any questions
SPEAKER11 - for the
SPEAKER1 - committee? Thank you so much. Speaking of CPCS, I think, firstly, we have William Shea virtually. From Committee for Public Counsel Services.
WILLIAM SHAY - COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES - HB 1453 - SB 991 - Good afternoon. Chair Day. Chair Eldridge, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is William Shay, and I am the director of audit and oversight with the Committee for Public Council Services. I'm speaking today on behalf of the agency in support of H.1453 S.991, an act concerning furnishing transcript notes and fees. As it's been described by the excellent panelists before me, this legislation updates the current statute language bound in Chapter 221 Section 88 and reflects how transcripts are prepared and delivered to litigants.
And reflect how business conducted by transcribers in 2023. Notably, it provides an increase in the original page rate from $3 a page to $5 to page to transcribers who provide these critical services. As you know, oftentimes citizens in order to pursue their lawful and legal objectives in court are required to provide a transcript of a hearing or a court proceeding in a lower court. This is true for all citizens, but it's also true for CPCS clients, whether they be adult criminal clients, children, and juvenile cases, civil, mental health cases or children and family law cases. My understanding is that the legislation has not been updated in many years and that the number of transcribers has remained relatively stagnant at 63. Over the last, several decades, and the number of the amount of work has increased dramatically.
This results for our clients in, court delays of proceedings, and it also puts additional burden and stress on the tiny pool of transcribers who performed this vital work. It does appear, as has been described, that the page rate hasn't increased in 35 years. And we do believe at CPCS that, passage of this amendment will help to address a shortage of transcribers and also help speed up the disposition of cases, which is of great interest to us. And it would be a great benefit to CPCS clients as well as all6670 other litigants in the Commonwealth. And for that reason, we do support this legislation I thank you for the opportunity, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much, Mr. Shea. Any questions from community members. Thank you very much. Next person sign up testify is Jennifer Capone. Jennifer Capone.
JENNIFER CAPONE - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1453 - SB 991 - Good afternoon, chairman Eldridge, and chairman Day. My name Jennifer Capone. I am an attorney. I live and work in North Andover. And I'm not with CPCS, but I work as a bar advocate, and I accept as a private attorney, court appointed cases. I have a solo practice, the bulk of what I do, just based on demand is work in the criminal courts. I have over the years learned of the various difficulties that the transcribers the court, the court certified trans transcribers encounter. And the reason that I learned those is through my everyday practice, the needs of my practice and my clients and my interaction with the transcribers that I end up working with. I find6757 it fascinating, some of6759 the points that I've learned when getting involved in supporting this pay increase.
The fact that there has been no increase in 35 years. The fact that there are only 63 approved transcribers in the state. And the fact that they were only getting paid and still are only getting paid $3 per page. I can't imagine, who would want to do that work for $3 a page, and I can't imagine who would want to do it for $5 a page, but that is the bill that it is before you. You've heard many points, in reasons to support referring this fill out favorably. And I am confident that it's going to be an easy decision for you to make. But I want to comment, in addition to the transcripts that are created from courtroom hearings. These are the same group of stenographers that if I need to have something transcribed on behalf of my clients, such as my client's interrogation at a police station, or if I have a client that is facing sexual assault charges.
And there was, a sane interview done, which happens those are protected interviews. So they're not easy to act us anyway. In order for me to represent my clients, I need to have these interviews transcribed. And The court transcribers don't have to accept those assignments, but they do accept those assignments. And they work hard on those because they care about the justice and the courts. I've recently been working with this stenographer on a say an interview, and she cannot hear the audio on at least half of one of these two videos. And she's put a couple of weeks into trying to determine that, and she's not getting reimbursed for the time that she has put in. She's still only getting paid the $3 per page. And without that end product, I can't go see a client in custody and go over what he is facing. And so There's a due process issue here all around, and it's an access to justice issue. And I ask you to report this bill out favorably. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much for coming for the committee. Questions for the committee. Thank you so much. Next person sign up testify is Lisa Fipp Lisa Fipps.
LISA FIPPS - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1453 - SB 991 - Good afternoon. Thank you for taking time to hear me. And I apologize. I have cataract surgery. I have the wrong glasses, so this could get interesting. As I was recently reminded, there is currently a crisis in our trial courts as there are not enough approved court subscribers to keep up with the high demand for transcripts. I am one of the approved court transcribers. I'm also a pass MCRA. Perhaps with your help and a clear and repayment process that crisis can be averted. The purpose of this bill before you should not only be to increase the per pay rate for transcribers, but to ensure that the transcribers are paid the proper statutory rate for the essential transcription services that they provide. In 2011 and an outside Section before the Ways And Means Committee Amendment 734 Electronic transcripts.
To budget bill H.3400 sponsored by representative Khan was put forth. The intent of that amendment was, quote, to provide that an antigen party shall not be charged for electronically productions or transcripts. The intent of that amendment as written would have negatively affected the transcriber's rate of pay. And because the legislator recognized that, the Khan bill amendment was not adopted as written. It is clear that the legislative intent was not to further reduce the transcriber's rate of pay, a rate that was set some 20 years ago prior remained stagnant as you have heard. That said, some of the amendment language was added as seen in the 4th sentence of the current statute. And as a direct result, afforded the opportunity. For some state agencies to manipulate the 2000 and one revised statute and issue improper payment to transcribers based on,7026 quote, “The reduced fee language of the statute.”
It would be extremely unfair to ask transcriber to charge a reduced fee rate because the person requesting the transcript is indigent. It would be unjust to target the small, hardworking group of approved court transcribers asking them to bear the burden and subsidize the car of the commonwealth providing transcripts to integer parties. What I am specifically concerned about is the inclusion of the language relative to antigen transcripts. That's covered in MGL 261, also known as the ICOs statue. We set forth that a that an indigent party's right for a transcript is to be paid by the by the commonwealth. The operative word here is commonwealth. MGL 288 dictates the cost of transcripts and the first sentence of what a transcriber shall paid.
And I urged this committee to honor the purpose of this statute and take this opportunity to return the statute to its purest form, how originally written, recognizing that the changes in fees made throughout its history was the legislator recognizing that there should be periodic rate increases for transcription services. In closing, I know I'm over. I would just ask that the7107 legislator read the statute in conjunction with trial court order 19(1) and the mass rules of appellate procedures and that the antiquated, any sentence in the bill that contains terms electronically paper copies, indigent should be removed from the statute. That's what's causing, I believe I heard reference earlier to a billing problem with CPCS. And I, thank you for your time. I know I'm all I'll be submitting my written statement. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much. And, I think virtually we have Quaverly Rothenburg, Quaverly Rothenburg,
SPEAKER41 - Hello. Can you hear7158 me?
SPEAKER42 - Yes. Please go ahead.
SPEAKER41 - Great.
QUAVERLY ROTHENBERG - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1453 - SB 991 - Thanks so much. So I have sort of an unusual take7164 My name is Quaverly Rosenberg. I am from Northampton. I am a stenographic transcriptionist, and thought I might start by giving you a bit about the difference between transcriber and stenographer, because you've heard those words a lot. A stenographer is someone who uses shorthand or abbreviations to write as fast as they can and translate what you say. And a transcriber is someone who writes down what you say, from recorded material. So a stenographic transcriber is someone who uses abbreviations or shorthand to write very quickly what you've said on a recorded tape. So that means that I can write as fast as you can talk just like your wonderful captioner.
Who I see doing a great job for you guys today, they have an extraordinary skill. In the private market, that is worth about $10,000 a day. $10,000 a day. Is what a stenographer can earn in the private market. So what am I doing here? Well, I'm not so different from you, I'm interested in civics. It looks like I'm going to be joining the Northampton City Council this year, so I'm a little baby legislator in the works and admire you guys very much. And I think it's really important that indigent clients have access to that $10,000 a day specialist, even though of course we can't afford that. So I built my business model around being able to take CPCS cases all day long because I write so fast I am probably the only person on the list who doesn't have a problem making money in a commonwealth because I am so fast.
However, I am here to support this bill because I need backup people are talking about how you're going to attract more vendors if you raise the rate, you will. We have 63 people for hundreds of courtrooms thousands of7291 cases being heard per day. My backlogs are heartbreaking. Mothers who are separated from their children by DCF who may have a success on appeal are waiting a year for their transcripts while their child is in foster care, people in prison for life who may have a success on appeal are waiting a year prison for their transcripts. It's terrifying. It's terrifying. So please please help us market this contract. $5 is fabulous. It will bring us a lot more people. Doesn't have to be $10,000 a day. $5 all day every day will get us what we7326 need. Thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much for your testimony.7330 Any questions from the committee? Thank very much. We had someone sign in additionally on the bill, Mary Ann Escobar. Good afternoon.
MARY ANN ESCOBAR - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1453 - SB 991 - Thank you so much for your time. I didn't7349 plan on speaking today, and we have a huge. If you haven't seen the people that are here, the support of this bill, I started in 1990 day graduated from Johnson Wells University, and I'm stenographer. I worked in the freelance industry for, a few years with another agency, and then I ended up opening my own little business called Ledgewood Court Reporting, and it's just myself and my partner who she would have been here today, but she had a medical issue.
But, I still to do in, transcripts for all that time. I actually just signed up on the ACT list in, 2018 when they opened it up. I also do, Grand Jury work, and I get paid for the same amount. I've been doing Grand Jury work since 2008 for the Bristol County DA's office. Myself and my partner, and I know the stenographer helps us out. So I'm not going to keep you for too long. I know you have a lot of things to do. I value your time. I hope you value our time. And I really hope that you support this bill. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much. Yep. Thanks for testifying. Excuse me. Moving on to the next bill, house 1652, filed by representative livingstone, resolutions requesting the governor to remove. First Justice, Patricia A. Gorman from the Norfolk County, probate, and family court. First person we have sign up test fire is Paula Rosetti. Paula Rosetti. Excuse me.
SPEAKER11 - Hello. Afternoon.
PAULA ROSETTI - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1652 - HB 1484 - Good afternoon. Cheryl Aldridge, Chair Day, and honorable members of the joint committee on the judiciary. My name is Paula Rosetti. I'm a resident of Boston, and I am testifying in support of H.1652 resolutions requesting the governor to remove first justice Patricia Gorman from the Norfolk County Provident Family Court and also supporting Bill H 1484, resolution to remove the same from the Duke's County family court. As an attorney, I am well aware of the stigma and retaliation I face by supporting this bill. But if anything, that should tell you that I do this out of urgent and grave concern for the safety and welfare of children, persons with disability and domestic violence victims. Reports from approximately 100 Judge Gorman Victims and survivors, including self indicate that Judge Gorman knowingly issues rulings that enable the physical.
And sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults, berate domestic violence victims and their families blatantly disregards mandated reporter concerns and predetermines what evidence she allows with comments that7523 have a chilling effect on the right to be heard, such as, “You're going to lose. I've already made at my mind.”, usually against the woman or the protective parent. Judge Gorman has also violated numerous judicial canons and due process rights, including blocking one party from accessing material records in a case, impounding an entire file with notice or hearing, and in guardianship cases, making no attempt to meet with or see, even virtually, the person whose fundamental rights will be taken away. For respectfully, I remind this honorable committee of a choice you have today.
You can say no to this bill and thus represent that Massachusetts supports a judge who discriminates against domestic violence victims and persons with disabilities, putting the feeling of terror into those simply want to protect themselves and their families from violence,7574 or you can represent Massachusetts as the state it claims to progressive and protecting of the right to main treatment of children and vulnerable adults in our society. And you can take a stand that we do not permit judges to abuse their oath and7589 put countless lives at imminent risk of harm or even death. Resolutions H.1652 and H.1484 resolutions to remove First Justice Patricia Gorman from Norfolk and Duke's County Court off to pass to provide long awaited peace to those already harmed by justice Gorman's actions and to prevent an inevitable tragedy from justice Gorman's decisions. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much for your testimony. Questions from committee? Lee, reps at Markey, do you have a question, virtually?
REP MARKEY - I do. I just, I want to just to ask. You made these accusations and there's over a 100 complaints against this judge. And I'm just curious as has the judicial conduct commission been a aware of this and have they responded in any way? I know you're an attorney and it would seem that that would be an avenue to take as opposed to the legislature and the governor?
ROSETTI - Yes. Thank you for your question, representative, Markey. I can't speak for every victim of Justice Gorman, but many have filed CJC Complaints. All of them that I've known, except possibly one have been outright dismissed without any investigation. Also, Justice Gorman was then immediately notified and retaliated against from what has been reported to me. And also there is the statistic, the one I remember from 2020, I can just only remember that one. About 97% of CJC complaints are dismissed outright, without an investigation. I'd have to check on the most updated, version in. So this has been an avenue that many victims have taken, and they've actually gotten worse treatment afterwards. So many are terrified to take that avenue after hearing what others have gone through.
MARKEY - If you have information to say that she's discriminated against people who are protected under the American Disabilities Act or anything to that effect. Do you have any numbers as to that that in particular?
ROSETTI - I do not have numbers, off the top of my head, but I would be happy to gather the that information for you, my written testimony. I know that I can't give much detail, but my brother is one of them. He has a disability.
MARKEY - Okay. I'm just I I would think that if collectively you add this information that that would be something that the Judicial Conduct Commission would want to look to, as far as a pattern as far as anything in which they judge7756 could be violating someone else's rights. It just seems that that makes, the most sense in in my humble opinion as to the avenue where things could be one either corrected and given an opportunity to correct them, to to educate and to further investigate what I consider to be pretty serious allegations.
So that's all I would think is there we've created that position for the purpose of making sure that people feel that the system is working for them and making sure that judges act appropriately. If there's an issue with the JCC, I think typically, it would be for individual, litigants to make a complaint and they may dismiss it. But, collectively, you've describe what seems to be quite serious and that if that description falls through, it would seem to make sense. To, have the JCC involved in it, and that would be the proper form.
ROSETTI - I appreciate your question, and I'd be happy to get, account our number to you after this hearing. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thanks again for coming from the committee. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER45 - Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. chairman.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Next person sign up testify is Elizabeth McGraw.
ELIZABETH MCGRAILL - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1652 - I didn't plan on speaking to, but I'm going to My name is Elizabeth McGraill. I'm from Milton, Massachusetts. I'm here to represent Matthew McGraill and Alyssa McGraill. My case out the probate court case is probably the most corrupt, involves collusion, corruption, a two-year highest asset divorce case that Massachusetts was ever seen. It was done in two years There were five judges in 11 lawyers on my case. My next court date is December 13th, and the judge is Gorman. I'm here to support that bill. It's not a boys’ club. It includes girl too.
And I feel as if something you need to look at is there is a group of judges and lawyers, that are IRB board members, connected to the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, which gives them some sort of federal, extra federal immunity. There's lawyers involved too. But to me, it's corruption. I mean, this court needs to change. My children were trafficked. It was organized through the probate court to traffic my children. My ex-husband is directly connected to Jeffrey Epstein so you can imagine the abuse that we have suffered and are still suffering every day. I will not move in fear. I expect to sit at the table when I'm done. Thank you very much. The judges need to change. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much testimony.
SPEAKER8 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Next person's sign up testify is Leslie Vogel. Lesley Global.
LESLIE VOGEL - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1652 - HB 1484 - Good afternoon. Chair s Eldridge and Day and honorable community members. My name is Leslie Vogel. I'm a physician and a Boston resident in support of Bill, 1652, requesting removal of first justice Patricia Gorman from the Norfolk County Probate Court, as well as 1484, which request removal of justice Gorman from the Duke's County probate court. The purpose of these bills is to save lives now by protecting litigants and their families from unchecked and reckless domestic violence. Multiple litigants report that domestic violence, even with the tune 9A is repeatedly minimized or ignored by this judge.
Protective parents, including myself, have been penalized by Judge Gorman, for reporting the violence. Even if that parent is a mandated reporter as I am in appropriately following Massachusetts law, Consequently dangerous rulings are made, which put our children and young disabled adults directly into the hands of adjudicated DV abusers. When left without oversight, these abusers physically assault, socially isolate. Medically neglect, psychologically manipulate, and emotionally terrify our vulnerable children. Some commit murder. History shows that abusers remain abusive. Therefore, granting custody or guardianship is unequivocally dangerous as David Almonds in harmony, Montgomery's tragic debts have taught us.
Yet litigants report that Judge Gorman continues to give abusers carte blanche to terrorize their families indefinitely, mine included. The history of 1652 speaks to the authenticity of our group's complaints. We're not here to align or fabricate or ask who gets the BMW. Once we submitted the bill of address, emails started rolling in to Rep Livingstone. From litigants with the same stories, but who would never even spoke with each other. Rep Livingstone described it as follows anti paraphrase. “My office has received approximately 30 inquiries to join the legislator regarding Judge Gorman, and I receive additional inquiries every week.
All the inquiries indicated that Judge Gorman needs to be removed from office regarding her unfairness and her treatment of litigants.” A flood of litigants then counted our group, contacted our group at estimating about 100 families with the same stories. Others chose to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. Some of us call the protection paradox. Parents who protect their children from violence are threatened and punished with custody loss, and parents are violent toward their children or rewarded with unsupervised visits and eventually custody. Our children say is being actively ignored right now under this judge. I urge you sorry. I urge you to pass these bills immediately save your lives. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much for your testimony. Appreciate your time. Sure. Any questions, the committee? Thank you so much. Next person, virtual Kayla Knight. Kayla Knight.
SPEAKER47 - Hello? Can you guys hear me?
SPEAKER42 - Yes. Please go ahead. Hello?
SPEAKER47 - Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize.
KAYLA KNIGHT - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1652 - HB 1484 - Good afternoon. Board chairman, Eldridge, and chair Day, and they all honorable judicial committee. I'm here to support, my assigned bill 1652. I'm also supporting bill for 1884. My name is Kayla Knight. First dose is, Patricia Gorman, and the ethical rulings put passed my sons in my life. I'm really lucky and grateful to be here today to be able to share my story and support these two bills. I thought it was just me. I found out that indeed I was not alone. In fact,8223 I found out that many others just like me and my young child were not8227 really victims of domestic violence from8229 our abuse We are also victims of first Justice, Patricia Gorman, ordering unethical rulings that go against state and federal judicial codes of conduct and violate many8240 of the tenets by unethically placing hundreds of children.
Including my own young child in dangerous situation pack with a documented abuse search. Whether it be in visitations, custody, guardianships, or a reunification therapy, or the camp, I thought it was just me. In my case, Judge Gorman ignored the severity of not only documented physical abuse and deference by my abuser, meet against my young son and myself. She ignored significant evidence that my abuser had and still has legal guns in his possession. My child is on my 209A restraining order for her abuser searches stay away from and to have no contact with. My 209A prohibits her abuser to own or be in possession of any firearms. The judge ignored the assault and battery with a deadly weapon from her user against my three year old child at the time.
And the dangerous hearing of our abuser was found to be a danger and was placed on a GPS and8302 clip bracelet for a year. Judge Gorman falsified back and blatantly ignored almost all of my evidence in my8309 case. She heard ex-parte communications with the defendant's attorney to have my8314 209A vacated in the district8316 court, which the defendant's attorney blurted out several times in two separate court hearings. Judge Gorman had also stated in an eager as possible manner towards me and my attorney in my case that she was not going to look at my evidence because her mind was8333 already made up in my case. She outright blatantly ignored evidence such as DCF records, police reports, pictures of abuse, documented text messages, The district court records 30 record school letters.
The GL report doctor's letters, a 21 page affidavit of several dated8351 act of abuse. Two separate visitation centers, documentations, and much, much more. She made several clerical errors that were documented and signed off by her one was just this year, and it's on the record. The Wrentham Court8366 District8366 had to fix her mistake on my 209A. I feel that these mistakes were purposefully and intentionally done, especially after I submitted a CJB complaint. At the end of December 2019, First Justice Gorman retaliated more even more against me in my case. My child was unethically court ordered forced, and I quote that course, even though it went against all professional documentation, to do visits in two separate visitation centers. Most centers suspended the visitations and documented that the visits were not in the best interest of my child. Judge Gorman. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
then eager.
SPEAKER18 - Is
SPEAKER1 - that you've reached your three meds? So if you could conclude.
KNIGHT - Sure. I kindly ask you to please protect the hundreds and victims and children from this monster by passing bills 1652 and 1484 and I kindly8422 ask you to remove first justice for Patricia Gorman in both the Norfolk8426 and Duke's County probate courts. Please remember that his support, I thought it was just me. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much. Appreciate testifying. Next person virtually is Kristin Burnier. Kristin Burnier.
SPEAKER12 - Hi. Yes. That's me. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER42 - Yes. Please go ahead.
KRISTINE BURNIER - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1652 - Okay. Thank you. I'm going to, first of all, thank you, Chair Eldridge and Day, honorable committee members. I'm in support of Bill H 1652. And I would like8467 to use my testimony time to read key points from the Keeping8475 Children Safe From Family Violence Act or Kayden's Law. And the reason why I want to do that is because, this is a US government law and the Congress has done research and made some points which8490 directly relate to our to many of the women and that are joining, support for this bill. So the first point is Approximately one in 15 children is exposed to domestic violence each year. Researchers have documented nearly 800 child murders in the United States since 2008 committed by a divorcing or separating parent More than a 100 of these child murders are known to have occurred after a court ordered the child to have contact with a dangerous parent over the objection of a state, parent, or caregiver.
So I just say that to say this is the fear of many of the people that, are supporting this bill. Most child abuse is perpetrated in the family by a parent, intimate partner violence, and child abuse overlap in the same families at rates between 30% and 60%. A child's risk of abuse increases after a perpetrator of intimate partner violence separates from a domestic partner, even when the perpetrator has not previously directly abused the child. Children who have witnessed intimate partner violence are approximately four times more likely to experience direct child male treatment than children would not witnessed intimate partner violence. More than 75% of child sex abuse is perpetrated by a family member or a person known to the child. Researchers suggest a child's exposure to a batterer is among the strongest indicators of risk of incest victimization. Empirical research indicates that courts regularly discount allegations of child physical and sexual abuse when those allegations are raised in child custody cases.
Courts believed less than one 4th of claims that a father had committed child or sexual abuse. With respect to cases in which an allegedly abusive parent claimed the mother alienated the child, Courts believed only one out of 51 claims of sexual molestation by a father. But independent research indicates that child sexual abuse allegations are credible between 50% and 70% of the time. Empirical research shows that alleged or known abuse of parents are often granted custody or unprotected parenting8639 time by courts. Approximately a third of parents alleged to have committed child abuse took primary custody from the protective parent reporting the abuse placing children at ongoing risk. And Finally, scientifically unsound theories that treat abuse allegations of mothers as likely false attempts to undermine the father's are frequently applied in family court to minimize or deny reports of abuse of parents and children. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER42 - Thank you
SPEAKER11 - very much
SPEAKER48 - for your time.
SPEAKER11 - Yes. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much. Next person sign up is Yani Osmi. Yanny Osmi virtually.
SPEAKER49 - Hi. Can you hear me okay?
SPEAKER42 - Yes. Please go ahead.
YANI AZMI - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1652 - Good afternoon. Chair Eldridge Chair8693 Day, and distinguished members of the8695 joint committee on the judiciary. My name is Yani Azmi. I'm a former resident Norfolk County, Massachusetts. I'm testifying on behalf of myself and my daughter. I'm in support of Bill H 1652, requesting to remove first Justice Patricia Gorman from the Norfolk County Program in Family Court. My story is long I'll keep it short. It does not have a happy ending, so it's not, you know,8719 wait for that. In short, either judge Gormman's decisions8723 led to a to keyed of other negative outcomes for me and my daughter. She refused to view evidence in court. She had called DCF during a court session. And8733 was confirmed there was an active investigation against my ex-husband at the time.
Not 30 minutes later, she proceeded to grant him full physical custody of her granted supervised visits to me. Long story short, when it was time for the guardian to interview her, she was with the abuser in a one-bedroom8752 apartment in Brookline. So unsurprisingly, she lied and denied the abuse. And I'm sure for Judge Gorman, her part ended there. For my daughter and me, it changed everything. Our lives will never be the same. She's not part of my day to day any longer. She lives 1100 miles away. And I see her once a year in the summer, so every time I think maybe I should fight for what's right. I don't want to8780 risk losing those summers with her. So essentially, judge Gorman also allowed my access to places stipulation of the custody agreement to deny me asking about any abuse of any sort, enabling him to keep abusing her without any repercussions. And I just don't want my story to give you someone else's story. Thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for testimony. Much appreciated. Next person virtually is Martina Griffin. Martina Griffin.
SPEAKER12 - I don't believe that she's could attend after all.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Dominique Quinio, Dominic Duynio. AV8828 DOWDS, Amy Doudes?
SPEAKER33 - Yep. Yes. Hi. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER42 - Yes. Please go ahead.
SPEAKER33 - Great.
AIVY DOWDS - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1652 - I'm testifying on behalf of my brother. Edward Lau, residency in Quincy, Massachusetts. Thank you for giving me the opportunity. Similar to the ladies that went before me, at first, I thought you know, it was just us. I live in Pennsylvania, and I tried to support my family because they have limited English skills. My brother has never committed any crimes. He was, going through the worst case assigned to Josh Gorman, we have built up all the evidence that the wife, the ex wife is, neglecting children, we have evidence of her hiding assets. Judge Gorman refused to look at any evidence. And at one point, my brother was handcuffed and then segregated, put in jail for a civil matter.
My lawyer was appalled and had no words, to support us. She said she was shocked and8899 has no idea why, such judgment was, was passed. We were at to put a $125,000 of bail. My family doesn't have a lot of money. We how all the relatives that give get us the money, but judge Gorman in touch with it or not She did not provide clarity in terms of instructions on how to get my mother, out once we post bail. We, he ended up having to spend the night there, even though we had the bail money, the, the court or whatever, whatever office she is out of the, out of the day and that he has to spend the night there until, she gets back in the office. This is, this is wrong. My brother8952 has never committed any kinds. And finally, we're, he just traumatized.
He's He has no energy, and now he's seeking, like, professional therapy. His two daughters want to go back to him. But our lawyer quote, this charges out to get your family. I suggest you settle before it gets worse. You know, my family, we skip communism to be in a country where there's law and order but we're8986 faced with Judge Gorman. And now my brother is fearful for his life, fearful for even bringing up or opening the case again and he's advising his daughters that he can't there's nothing he can do. And so this is unfair. I am and I am fully supportive of removing Judge Gorman. This is America that needs to be law and order judges cannot abuse their power and get away with it. And I trust you all on the panel here to do what's right. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - They can start these doubts. Appreciate your testimony. On that specific pose, everyone else is here, which is a test fire. Second, is Patricia Jones. Patricia Jones. Anyone here
SPEAKER42 - Please. Mhmm.
SPEAKER48 - Like, a long way. For what? Let's do it.
SPEAKER1 - Oh, do you want to test drive? Yes. Oh, please go ahead.
SPEAKER48 - And start?
SPEAKER1 - Yes. Alright.
SPEAKER48 - What do you want me to do?
SPEAKER1 - Alright. Which one I just we mentioned why you support the bell. That's it. Oh, yes.
SPEAKER42 - Just very quickly.
DEBORAH MATTEL - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1652 - I'm Deborah Mattel, and I I'd like you all to support the bill to remove Judge Gorman. I will say that the allegations made that the senator asked, Ms. Rosetti about. Those are factual. I don't see anything alarming about that as those are my experience in what I've heard. And I've had a complaint with the CJC that was supposed to be held confidential that judge Gorman knew about by less than a month after it was, screened in on her. And she mentioned it from the bench in April, and then again in June. She made the initial order that got my kids sexually abused, and then she denied the existence or allowance of all the evidence. She said on court records, she would go against the GAL, the DCF, and the DA, if it didn't go with what she agreed upon. It was represented how sane interviews are supposed to be held protected.
Yet Judge Gorman gave the main perp information about the pending sane interview, the date when it would happen and gave him the right to see the child with him knowing the date of the night before he saw her and the sun. She thought child pornography wasn't an issue as it was on an old computer by my ex husband and said it wasn't current fitness as it was on an old computer. Just everything. She is she pushes you right to the edge, and she does it. I feel with malice. It feels like she tap dances on your fingers as9211 you're hanging over a ledge. I can't I can go on and on about the injustice she does and has done and what I feel to be malice and the and she caused my children and my family and just the, the trauma. You will never be a same. What I ask of you guys is you guys can do what's right. You guys can have litigants save justice in the protection of a judge.
Who chooses not to follow the9244 law or fundamental rights. I don't think she should be protected. I'm reminded of a story about starfish with a storm comes in all these starfish are on the beach. And this little boy is throwing the starfish into the ocean. And a man comes up and he says, What are you doing? And he says, I'm saving the starfish lives. The man says, you can't save them all. And the boy picks up the starfish, throws it in the ocean, and says, I saved that one's life. And that is what you guys can do. You guys can be the difference. I know it's against popular demand, but I am asking The damage is already done to my family, but you guys can save the damage from other families and other litigants. And that I re thank you guys for your time. Please do the right thing. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you so much for your testimony. And is there anyone else who wishes to9300 testify here? Okay. That concludes judiciary committee's court administrative hearing. I want to thank everyone took their time out to participate, to chair day. Other committee members very appreciate it. And if you have any supplemental testimony, you can contact judiciary committee research director, michael mustow@michaels.gov.
© InstaTrac 2025