A brief dramatic/comic interlude from the “What Not to do in Marriage and Divorce” manual you are wasting your time reading in this blog. What you might call a change of pace which still covers a phenomenon which is critical in our lives.

Who do you believe delivers the medical care you get when you visit the doctor or even end up in the hospital? You know out of the whole amount of time you are scheduling or at an office visit you actually see the doctor or nurse practitioner for what……..10 minutes, five minutes three minutes, less? You make the appointment, wait in the office waiting room and wait in the examining room usually ½ clothed for 1 hour, 2 hours 3 hours or more.

In the hospital you lie in bed and see the doctor if at all once every two days and even someone on the level of a nurse practitioner or RN once an hour.

Since you are reading this blog you are probably smart enough to know this is okay because if you get more attention from the higher ups something is wrong, the higher the rank you see in a medical situation the sicker you are so you rarely ask for El Capitan except to get out.

But you must have thought about whom the people are you do have contact with and seem to be the primary determinants in your care.

Welcome to the “medical ladies,” those women who are usually seriously overweight, a current or “past” smoker whose children have either left or been removed from her custody or does not have children because she parties so much which you hear her talking about constantly if she is not complaining about her life or eating. She is always bad tempered, always too busy to talk with you or answer the phone and is constantly misplacing or outright losing files.

My favorite was the most recent (and staff of the top cardiologists in New York City replete with the New York Magazine covering stating so) when a group of “medical ladies” was gathered behind the reception desk discussing various bars and how late they stayed open and which had the best chicken wings and biggest drinks. Ignoring me they continued their bar discussion at some point a sixth woman in a white coat (that makes them important!) asked if anyone had seen Mrs. So and So’s file who was a patient who needed a new pacemaker, which is generally something a person needs immediately, and after some reluctance to change the beer and wings conversation no one had seen the file and she thought perhaps this woman’s charts had gone in with a Mr. This and That who was probably there for a stress test but now has a pacemaker. I wondered if the surgeon wondered why there was no pacemaker to remove in a replacement job, but she or he I am sure knows how much fun those medical ladies are!

It is these uneducated or in rare cases very partially trained women who run medicine and who by default are your caregivers. These women who do not know confidentiality from constitutionality and who in the outside world would not last as Burger King swabbies and who have absolute control over your health.

Next time you deal with a medical office, ask questions, check your own chart and pray for the time when all of this is totally automated by technology. And just ignore their snarls and mean faces or else order up a burger with fries and a chocolate milkshake which might get you more than the incompetence they demonstrate in the medical office..

“Universal Design” is the name for fully handicapped accessible homes and supplies the answer but very few governmental authorities are doing anything to encourage such construction and there is simply not sufficient profit for builders to privately create this housing.

Of course that tells us something else, does this mean that “retaliation” is the norm? It sure sounded like an accepted practice, retaliating against a lawyer when she exercised free speech. Some have said that Judge Livingstone was the tip of the iceberg.

Do judges retaliate when a lawyer does her job? This is pretty amazing and throws another weight on the scale for elected judges using restricted campaigns. Never thought we would feel this way but at least elections make these judges accountable to someone and if we have to put up with some of the downside of elected officials it may be worth it.

Will a judge retaliate against a lawyer or civilian if they know the papers may make a story out of it and they will lose their next election? Probably not, although the recent fear the media demonstrated with the Livingstone situation does not provide much hope.

What occurred with this judge demonstrates the kind of problems in our judicial system. It was hard not to notice that a lot of staff and other court house folks were hurt by the judge’s resignation. For them it represented the loss of a family member but also someone who shared their sometimes very caustic view of defendants and plaintiffs.

The Probate and Family Court is supposed to be more accessible than other courts allowing for Pro se to be effective. Perhaps this is a good and positive place for the head of the state court and her staff to start by really reviewing the support and help the public gets in this court and eliminating the tremendous advantage lawyers still seem to have. Positive strides could be made by training and monitoring clerks in making sure they help folks and giving them the technological knowledge to be more effective at this.

The difference between county courts in this regard is palpable. And your future and your family’s well-being should not depend either on who you get for a clerk, how his or her day is going or how much money you have to pay a lawyer, or not.

So that is a good place to start.

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

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

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

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

Positive word in this area is that our favorite local radio station out of Marshfield is about to air their story, probably good because the tapes they made are about to disintegrate!

Anyhow, if you feel safe enough please let the Ledger know your experiences, especially the women. We are finding that when complaints about being negative about this judge come this way they invariable express anti-Dad sentiments and need to understand that it is actually mostly women who Mike has damaged. We thought Susan Wornick at WCVB was going to do a story but even she chickened out so we must keep reminding the Fourth Estate of why it exists.

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

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

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

So it appears that in investigating 3 serious charges the CJC performed its due diligence by talking to the person being charged and that was it.

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

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

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

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

And, secondly what happened to the Commission on Judicial Conduct? On October 22 2007 they issued a major press release but now have said nothing publicly about the SJC ordering them to hold a hearing. Have they had their hand slapped by the SJC?

If this was a policeman or teacher long ago he or she would have been suspended if not fired.

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

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

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

We find it interesting that the organization responsible for judicial conduct is itself being brought into line by judges, this speaks volumes about the failure of the Massachusetts’ system to remedy such serious miscarriages. And now Judge Livingstone is still wreaking havoc with families, mothers and fathers.

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

Here is what we know so far:

fwLoadMenus();

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 Lawyers Weekly, Inc.

March 5, 2008 News Story SJC nixes disciplinary recommendation for judge Orders CJC to proceed with public hearing By David Frank The Supreme Judicial Court has rejected a joint disciplinary recommendation between the Commission on Judicial Conduct and Probate & Family Court Judge Michael J. Livingstone. Pursuant to CJC Rule 13B, which went into effect last July, the parties submitted an agreed-upon recommendation that would have resolved the formal charges brought against Livingstone. But, in a surprising move, the SJC declined to adopt the proposed resolution and ordered the CJC to continue with its previously scheduled public hearing. The hearing is now slated for May 19. “Any time you have the parties involved in litigation coming to an agreed upon recommendation, the thought is that the court would defer to the judgment of the lawyers,” said an attorney familiar with Rule 13B. “But that obviously didn’t happen here, which makes you wonder what the SJC thought was the appropriate discipline.” Since the parties were required to obtain the permission of the SJC, the proposed disciplinary action involved either a suspension, monetary sanction or other restriction on the judge’s assignments. CJC Executive Director Gillian E. Pearson said the hearing, which was initially scheduled for Jan. 2, was postponed in order to allow the SJC to consider the joint recommendation. The May 19 hearing will be presided over by retired Superior Court Judge Charles F. Barrett. “This is the first and only time that a Rule 13 submission has been sent to the SJC,” said Pearson. “Speaking in general, the SJC’s order of August 2006 made clear that the commission did not have the power to enter into an agreed disposition with a judge that included a suspension, a monetary sanction or any other conditions on the judge’s assignments.” Previously, Pearson said the parties were free to enter into those types of agreed dispositions without the approval of the SJC. The charges against Livingstone originated from a CJC investigation of complaints filed by the SJC in 2005 and Raymond Hotte in 2006. Both complaints were brought in connection with the judge’s role as a property owner in a dispute with Hotte over a building Livingstone owned with a business partner in New Bedford. According to the formal charges, the CJC alleges that Livingstone engaged in a pattern of misconduct over a period of time that was prejudicial to the administration of justice and unbecoming a judicial officer. As part of its complaint, the CJC alleges that Livingstone made at least two false statements in an affidavit filed in New Bedford District Court. Livingstone’s lawyer, Michael E. Mone Sr. of Boston, could not be reached for comment prior to deadline. MLW

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

It seems that one of our local South Shore public figures who has been a selectman, a finance committee chair, a major fundraiser and leader, and been instrumental in many local “biggies” such as the commuter rail extension, water treatment and the establishment of the paramedic system on the south shore is in a tough divorce battle but is finally getting to the last phases of property distribution after years of fighting on everything else. Jennifer DiGregorio of Marshfield is opposing counsel and during a trial last month insisted on several occasions during her presentation that this fellow had “stolen” a large amount of money from an estate he is the executor of. Not only did this gain him an overnight in jail but he had to pay some of this money to his ex on Judge Livingstone’s order. In other words, yes, the judge made him pay stolen money to his ex, that is if you believe this lawyer and the judge.

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

Can you say “psychosis?”

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

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

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

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

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