Commonwealth of Massachusetts County of Norfolk The Superior Court Civil Docket NOCV2002-01070 RE: Amos v Kickham et al TO: David R Amos 153 Alvin Avenue Milton, MA 02186 CLERK'S NOTICE ‘This is to notify you that in the above referenced case the Court's action on 08/22/2003: RE: Defendant Goguen McLaughlin Richards & Mahaney LLP's MOTION to Dismiss (MRCP 12b) Complaint of David R Amos. is as follows: MOTION (P#74.0) If a written opposition is not received by 9/5/03, then the case will be dismissed. If an opposition is received this matter should be presented to a Judge (Paul Chernoff, Justice).dated 8/21/03 Notices mailed August 22, 2003 Dated at Dedham, Massachusetts this 22nd day of August, 2003. Walter F. Timilty, Clerk of the Courts BY Assistant Clerk Telephone: (781) 326-1600 Copies mailed 08/22/2003Assistant Clerks September 5, 2003 Mary K. Hickey Joseph P. Hurley IIT Norfolk Superior Court 650 High Street. Dedham, MA. 02026 Phone 781 326-1600 Fox 781 326-3871 Sir Madam, Please find enclosed a recording of the wiretap tape numbered 139 ona CD as promised in the attached letter. As I stated be careful of other people’ s Fourth Amendment Rights. It appears that so far I am the only one that cores and I am an Alien. Also please make note by the date of the postage stamp on this letter that I have responded to you on the date that you demanded. It is very likely that I will have viewed the docket and filed what you have demanded of me before you have received this mail. It may be the last time any Clerks Office within the State Courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be will be bothered by my presence. I amas T have said a "Mr. Mom’. I had to wait until my kids started school before I could leave them. The visit to our home by the Men in Black was the last straw on the back of a patient man. Shame on you all for forcing a father to separate himself from his family in order to seek justice elsewhere. Trust me, it will not be the last that you hear of me. I will not wait any longer to amend this complaint. As I told you all, the Kickhams practiced the same crimes again after these complaints were filed over one year ago. The Norfolk Superior Court has sown the seeds of a serious scandal when it dismissed the complaints against them. Watch me reap the benefit of its delay and malice. Tf you wish, please sue. I will argue without delay. I treasure my kin not lucre. T laugh when T lose, but when someone negatively affects my kids T turn very very mean. Whereas lawyers love money so much and use it as a tool against me, will attempt to take every dime they haye without oe @ taxpayer a nickel Cyaill in Court David R. Kf 153 Alvin Ave. Milton, MA. 02186September 5, 2003 Assistant Clerks Mary K. Hickey Joseph P. Hurley IIT Norfolk Superior Court 650 High Street. Dedham, MA. 02026 Phone 781 326-1600 Fox 781 326-3871 Re: David R. Amos et al v. William J. Kickham et al civil docket NOCV2002-01070 and Jean F, O'Meara et al v. Kickham Law Offices et al civil docket NOCV2002-01113 Sir and Madam, acknowledge receiving two unsigned notices from your office demanding that I file written oppositions to the filings of Motion to Dismiss by the lawyer, James A. McLoughlin. I demand to know who sent it. Thus far I have only received two signed documents from Norfolk Superior Court one document in September of 2002 was illegible and the other was from the layman, Virginia Foster, as she attempted to argue Rule 9A. You failed my stress test. I don't mind the documents now filed on the record. With regard to the demands in the notices I am serving upon you my written oppositions that were received by your office with many attachments on June 30", 2003. I served the other litigants that have standing in this matter copies months ago. I did not notify James A. McLaughlin because he has no standing and he has not notified me of his actions nor am I compelled to answer a very late Motion pursuant to Rule 12. T must ask you two why the clerk would be so certain that Judge Paul Chernoff would dismiss a complaint byway of a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12. The court must first notify the plaintiffs that the times on the tracking orders of these complaints is allowed to be ignored by the defendant. The court's tracking orders are hereto attached for your review. Please notice that I am the party to be notified by all other parties of their pending actions then check your own records of the documents filed by James A. McLaughlin. He swears that he did not notify me in the CV2002- 01113 matter and yet you filed it and demand that I answer. The CV2002-01070 is captioned David R. Amos et al and yet you have failed to correct your own error after it has been pointed out to you and your of fice several times in the past year. All litigants are well aware of my wife's standing in that matter. Despite Robert L. Quinan Jr's deliberate omission of et al after our names he recently swears that he served only my wife his Motion in the CV2002-01070 matter that he captions with only my name. I do not recognize the jurisdiction of this court over these matters and welcome the opportunity to explain it to the court in an Oral Argument with this lawyer.My request for an oral argument in response to Assistant Attorney General Robert L. Quinan Jr's request for a prompt ruling will follow this letter byway of Certified Mail. Today I must first determine for myself that the two Exhibits E still exist within your records and then I will know what to attach to my request for an Oral Argument. I do not wish to discuss the matter with anyone. I merely wish to view the public record of our complaints. There appears to be many documents missing. Because of much harassment by many authorities I will have several original wiretap tapes with me in my possession. If any authority attempts to make false allegations against me again and attempts to say that it is within their jurisdiction to prosecute me then the tapes that T have in my possession at the time are within their jurisdiction as well. With this letter Thave attached a copy of a Cinderella Affidavit as proof of my concern of possible harassment while in your Office. You know as well as I the reasons for the recent flurry of documents filed in the Norfolk Superior Court. What you do not know is all the other things that I have done to prosecute these matters at a federal level It should be interesting to see if I am allowed to argue with Robert L. Quinan Jr. in state court before the matters are removed to federal court once more. Within the Certified Mail, T will send you Mr. Hurley and you Ms. Hickey a CD with a copy of the wiretap tape number 139 on it. It can be played on any CD ployer, it is not required to be played in a virus paranoid computer. This recording is sent by certified mail to you only as officers of the court and in confidence in order that it may be properly investigated. Please be careful not to violate other people's Fourth Amendment Rights. Robert L Quinan Jr. and one of his clients Michael Fredrickson are in receipt of their copies. Many other authorities are in possession of the recording and a great many more in short order. As you know from the letter I served upon you months ago, the ACLU was authorized by me to go forward. Hereto attached is their response along with the recent letter to Robert L Quinan Jr. that inspired him to finally do something. T am well aware that one Bar Association considers Mary K. Hickey an outstanding government employee and another Bar Association considers Quinan the same. Are your actions merely standard operating procedure for government employees in order to protect the interests of lawyers from the valid complaints of laymen? After my experiences it certainly appears to be and that the award is justified. Tt should not have been necessary fo me to complain of crimes ina civil complaint. The Attorney General's task is twofold. He is the people's lawyer and the government's lawyer although he is obliged to defend state employees he also is compelled to prosecute them if they break the law. I complained of the Attorney General Tom Reilly and all the other state defendants as individuals because they failed to act within the scope of their employment and assisted the Kickhams in their crimes. The Clerks of Norfolk Superior Court convinced me long ago that I should put them in the same boat. Ask you boss, Walter F. Timilty, if Iam serious. He and I met eye to eye and toe to toe almost exactly one year ago in front of witnesses. He saw me smile when he claimed the Attorney General would defend him.T.also demand to know what business did the Clerk Brian G, Roche have with my wife in May of 2003 and where did he get her phone number. I never received any courtesy calls that the Clerks make mention of in the notice of the Kickham Law Offices actions, I strongly believe that the Court should notify me of a Removal of a Judgment for Default before I am required to answer a very late Motion to Dismiss. Tf Judge Chernoff had read any of the filings before dismissing the matter, he would have seen their crimes. The complaints alone clearly show the Kickham's crimes. If the judge hed read the Motion to Dismiss and its Opposition by the defendant, Cardinal Law. he could have easily understood my problems with the Clerks Office of Norfolk Superior Court and the fact that the Kickham Law Offices were made well aware that they were in default in September of 2002. The perjury within their filings in May of 2003 was blatantly obvious. The docket sheets suggest the oppositions are missing. To refute Virginia Foster attempts to argue with me. I must say that the rules of state court must be met by the defendant before the matter can be removed to a federal court. At the time of the removal the US Attorneys clients were two days in default and the US Attorney had no right to remove the name of Cardinal Law as a defendant from the complaint. I had every right to oppose pursuant to Rule 9A. However upon review I realized that for many reasons the matter should remain in federal court the instant the US Attorney filed his fraudulent documents in federal court. I made you and Mr. Hurley well aware of these facts beginning in February of 2003. Both you and he are members of the bar and have at the very least witnessed several crimes. The first offense that the Clerks Office of Norfolk Superior court was involved in was the perjury within the first filings of the lawyer, Ian Crawford. My wife and I visited the Clerks Office in September of 2002 and asked Mr. Hurley in person about the missing documents. He claimed to know nothing and has done nothing since. On October 22, 2002 the clerk, Virginia Foster did say in front of witnesses that this often happens. On June 30, 2003 I did show a pile of some sort of tapes to Virginia Foster and to the court guard that witnessed George Berube trying to provoke me in front of my son one year ago. He is a litigant as well and was entitled to see to view his own matters and the reasons why his papa has not had much time for him lately. My son is the best man I have ever met but too shy to be political. His sister is far from shy and also ethical. She considers this her world and she won't be denied. Watch out, she is growing up fast and is very much like her strange father who encourages free thought. Please find enclosed: The Oppositions to Motions to Dismiss in the above stated matters that the clerk has requested and attached to each are: 1. A copy of a note from Berube to Hickey on September 4, 2002. 2. Copies the letters to and from the clerks in October of 2002. 3. A copy of my Appearance that Virginia Foster claimed did not exist until found it in the docket for her.4. A copy of each of the Motions to Dismiss by Abigail Shaine that are dated August 12, 2002 and were opposed before the matters were removed. They were filed in Norfolk Superior Court by Ian Crawford one day before the Clerk recorded the removal of the matters on the Docket Sheets. The lawyer attempting to defend the Director of the Massachusetts Bar Association committed perjury in his filings in federal court and was so incompetent he failed to meet the Local Rules and file a Notice of Appearance. This is amazing in and of itself, however the Assistant Attorney General Quinan did exactly the same thing and everybody knows it. . A copy of each the tracking orders and of the attested docket sheets of both courts. In the State record is no mention of Abigail Shaine's filings however the attempt to do the same by Cardinal Law is recorded over two weeks later. The federal record only mentions one opposition in hand writing in afterthought. . A copy of Cardinal Law's Motion to Dismiss dated the same day as the removal of the matter was recorded by Norfolk Superior Court. It should have remained in the docket. I waited until after it was filed to send him my opposition with the caption of the Federal Court applied. The related Oppositions are attached. The very late filing of Cardinal Law proves that Rule 9A of state court was not met by the US Attorney and that his clients were definitely in default. 7. A copy of two letters attached to my attempt to file Exhibits E in these matters on June 30, 2003. Foster acknowledged the receipt of them at the very least. She could not explain why they could not be filed 8. A copy of my letter to the Clerks and many others the received the same day by Virginia Foster and a copy of the ACLU responses. 9. A copy of two letters each to and from the District Attorney Tim Cruz and the US Attorney Don Feith. 10.A copy of my letter to a Bunch of Big Boys in Washington and Ted Kennedy's response. 11, A copy of a letter to the former District Attorney, Congressman Bill Delahunt, proving the need to present the evidence of wiretap tapes ina civil action in a state court. 12.A copy of letter sent to Assistant Attorney General Robert L Quinan Jr. and his client the General Counsel of the Board of Bar Overseers, Michael Fredrickson. 13.A copy of this letter and the letter to follow as proof of mailing From now on when the Clerks Office of Norfolk Superior court sends me something, would someone please sign it. I expect the same from other litigants. Many do not sign the copies sent to me. If I had failed to do so just once you would have hung me. If the document later disappears from the public record, I have no proo aa it ci existed. Cya'll in Court LO t Kalb Milton, MA 02186 go aCivil Clerk June 30, 2003 Norfolk Superior Court 650 High Street Dedham, MA, 02026 Re: David R. Amos et al v. Goguen, McLaughlin, Richards & Mahaney et al Docket No. CV 2002- 01070-A To Whom it May Concern Enclosed please find an original copy of my Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss by the Defendant, Goguen, McLaughlin, Richards & Mahaney, LLP in the above-entitled matte Whereas I do not recognize the Jurisdiction of Norfolk Superior Court over this matter. I wish to file the said Opposition in its entirety as Exhibit E within the docket of this matter_As a courtesy to the two Defendant who have standing against us in Federal Court, Sumner Gillette and David Butler, | will provide them with an exact copy of the attached documents. I have been handling this matter at the Federal Level in order that it may be properly remanded to Federal Jurisdiction before amending the complaint in order to name many defendants that | have now become aware of, Please make certain that this exhibit is not lost from the public record as so many other documents have in the past 183 Alvin Ave. Milton, MA 02186 (617) 240 6098THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT DAVID R. AMOS, et al ) e 2 ) on Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION. NO. :02 > opr ae : Cd v a WILLIAM J. KICKHAM, et al ) S ) Defendants. ) OPPOSITION OF THE PLAINTIFFS, DAVID R. AMOS ET AL, TO THE DEFENDANT'S, GOGUEN McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ‘Now comes the plaintiffs, David R. Amos et al, and oppose the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. The plaintiff, David R. Amos, speaks for all the plaintiffs, They are his two minor children and his wife He requires no license to defend the rights and interests of his family in a Pro Se action. David R. Amos appears before the court as Jean F. O’Meara to act in her name place and stead under her Durable Power of Attomey. GOGUEN, McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP are well aware that all of the plaintiffs have interest in the Estate and Trust of Elaine G. Kickham and of Jean F. O’Meara’s breakdown. The reasons are as follows: 1. The plaintiff, David R. Amos, states that the Motion to Dismiss served upon him by the Law Firm GOGUEN, McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP is not only without merit it is truly comical in light of the facts of the matter. 2. However itis also painfully apparent that the defendant's Motion to Dismiss follows on the heels of Judge Chemoff allowing the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Kickham Law Offices. That Motion although seven months late and the last to be filed was the first that the Norfolk Superior Court read and allowed. 3. The defendant, GOGUEN, McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP, must be hoping that what worked once should work twice, Nay not so if the plaintiffs have anything to say about it. The plaintiffs did no oppose the Kickham Motions because the crimes are blatantly obvious and it was a stress test of the ethics ofthe Judges of Norfolk Superior Court. Plus the Clerks Office of this court would not tell the plaintiffs what Judge would be hearing the matter. Mary Hickey had inferred that it was possibly a woman. 4, The Court has failed the simple ethical test. The plaintiffs agree with the defendant in that the Norfolk Superior Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter. The jurisdiction was lost the instant it was removed to federal court by the incompetent U.S. Attorney. 5. Ib is now time to reintroduce the reasons why Norfolk Superior Court should remand this matter back to federal court from whence it came in order that it be amended. The plaintiffs must name many more litigants that they have now become aware of since the filing of this matter almost one year ago. 6. One of the defendants that the plaintiffs will name is the U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan. State Court can ‘ot hear a matter in which he is a litigant, 7. The defendant has already filed a Motion to remove a Judgment by Default against it and was allowed. plaintiff did not oppose that action because the defendant was also praying to file an answer eight months late. 8. The plaintiffs had waited long enough for this matter to get out of the gate and the filing of an answer assured them that sooner or later they would stand before a jury. The filing of a Motion to Dismiss by the defendant, a law firm, is far from timely. This action is frivolous and without merit. There is no justification f this Motion because the defendant attached its first Motion to Dismiss to its answer to the complaint. 9. The one true statement by the defendant in the answer on file is that this court does not have jurisdiction ‘over the matter. All filings in this matter prior to the seven month late Motions by the defendants GOGUEN, McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP and The KICKHAM LAW OFFICES were in federal under federal law. The members of the law firm are not infants and should be competent enough to file a 4 answer in defense of their own interests. They were simply overconfident in the U.S. Attomey’s fraudulent behavior to save his butt as well as theirs and did not bother to file anything at all 10. The lawyers within GOGUEN, McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP, were shocked back reality by the Judgments of Default. However they should not have been surprised. The plaintiff had made th partners well aware in December of 2002 of the Affidavit demanding it. He had delivered it in hand to theiroffice and all ofits attachments that were about one foot thick. He offered to settle with them and was ignored. ‘The said document was also filed in Norfolk Probate Court attached to a timely answer of a complaint filed by the Trustee, James A. McLaughlin, against the interested parties of the Trust of Elaine G. Kickham. The Clerk of Norfolk Probate Court promptly destroyed that document. 11. The defendants in this matter were better informed as to the proceedings in U.S. District Court than the plaintiffs, All litigants except the plaintiffs and Cardinal Law were served the Ex Parte Motions of the U.S. Attorney. They defendants have no right to complain of delay when they are the cause of it. 12, The plaintiffs received only two documents in total from all litigants during the period of time that the matter lingered in U.S. District Court from the end of August of 2002 until March of 2003. One set was from the new attorney for the defendants William J, Kickham and his son Michael filing a second Motion to Dismiss by both panties and a Notice of Appearance and Certification of the U.S. Attorney over one month after the Affidavit demanding Judgment by Default against his clients. 13, The court is well aware of the fraudulent removal of this matter to U.S. District Court by the U.S. Attorney, on August 27, 2002. 14, The court is also well aware of the Clerk denying the plaintiff’ the right to file an Emergency Motion to Oppose the fraudulent behavior of the U.S. Attomey pursuant to Superior Court Rule 9A(e) 15, The U.S. Attorney was late in providing an answer on behalf of the defendants. Mark A. Vespucci, Timothy Croston and Charles Blackmore. 16, The removal to Federal was not timely and is affirmed by the attached Writ of Judge Ginsberg. 17. The U.S. Attorney had been notified of the fact that the said defendants were being complained of as individuals residing within the Commonwealth that had offended the plaintiff's Civil Rights. The pls ad waited the appropriate six months under federal law without receiving an answer in order to be able to do so under State laws. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not concerned as where the defendants were well at the time of service. The various Sheriffs according to State law properly executed all services.18. Within the Notice of Removal the U.S. Attorney committed perjury and claimed certain defendants were nc served and provided fraudulent documents in support of the falsehood. 19, The U.S. Attorney failed to notify all other parties of the Removal according to Federal and State laws. In support thereof the plaintiff points to the dockets and the fact that for weeks afterwards defendants were still trying to file documents in Norfolk Superior Court. 20. The U.S. Attorney altered the caption of the complaint removing et al after the plaintiff's name and removing the name of the defendant, CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, completely from the record. 21. The US. Attorney also removed GOGUEN, McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP and replaced it with the name of one individual of that firm. The same holds true for the defendant, DEUTSCH, WILLIAMS, BROOKS, DERENSIS & HOLLAND PC , 22. In this matter he swears to have served Jean F. O'Meara but refuses to acknowledge her existence within the complaint, both he and the court have removed et al from the caption after David R. Amos’ name. 23. The defendant demands that the plaintiffs obey Superior Court Rule 9A while ignoring every Rule. Ethics play no part in this Law Firm's conduct, 24, The plaintiff further states that the Dismissal of this complaint against the Kickham Law Office by Judge Paul Chernoff was not funny at all, It was a deliberate act of Malice. Like Judge Steams in U.S. District Court ‘who ignored all the rules and Dismissed the matter against the Treasury Agents Ex Parte, Paul Chernoff would ‘not have acted so wrongly without prior blessings from above. The extent of the conspiracy to cover-up this matter is beyond belief and yet everybody knows that such things happen everyday. 25. The fraudulent Assistant Attorey General Robert L. Quinan J. did remind Judge Chernoff of the Standard for Granting Motions to Dismiss “A motion to dismiss a complaint may only be allowed if it appears certain that the complaining party is not entitled to relief under any state of facts which could be proved in supporto the claim. Harvard Law School Coalition for Civil Rights v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 413 Mass, 66, 68 (1992) The allegations made of the complaint, as well as such inferences as may be drawn therefrom in the plaintiff's favor, are to be taken as true. Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn. P.C. 420 Mass. 404, a0 426. The plaintiff does not ask for a hearing to this opposition because he does not dare to stay around to meet Paul Chernoff at his convenience while malevolent Police Forces within Massachusetts try to impeach the plaintiff's character. Thus far the Milton Police have been to his door several times, the Carver Police have picked him out a line of cars after leaving court and charged him with speeding while joking about a conspiracy. ‘The Plymouth Police Dept. threatened to arrest him twice while trying to report crimes. The Sercret Service and the Milton Police have got him out of bed to answer their questions about false allegations made against him by the Quincy District Court, He has been pulled over many times for no reason whatsoever (twice within a half hour) and asked many improper questions as son as he answers the questions the cops run off because they don’t want to hear any more, The building Departments of both Milton and Plymouth have improperly harassed Jean F. O’Meara, In fact James B. Foster of the Milton Building Dept of Milton plead guilty before this very Court for larceny during the very same time frame that the Chief Mearns of Milton was claiming that Jean F. (O'Meara owned a stolen truck. The plaintiff must dispute the matter with Paul Chernoff and the Kickhams etc elsewhere. Massachusetts is not a safe place for him to reside. The Kickhams belong to the Mass. Association of Police Chiefs, the police actions appear to be protecting and serving the criminal Kickhams instead of prosecuting them. To date not one Police Department has accepted any evidence of their crimes even after the) questioned the plaintiff about false allegations against him, they will not accept the evidence to refute it. Lawyers must see the huge cloud that is over the State that is about to burst with personal injury lawsuits. 27. The plaintiff on behalf of the interests of his Clan and in the interest of Justice has determined that now is the time to spill the beans all over Beantown and exit stage left temporally separating himself from his family in order to protect them. Truth and Justice have nothing to do with the way things really are in Boston. 28, The plaintiff is compelled to take this drastic action because of possible foul play by very powerful opponents of his pursuit of justice. The best defense for a man that knows too much is to tell everybody everywhere what everybody already knows then lay low until the whistle blows. 29, If the defendants and the court review the attached documents they shall see that although Judge Paul Chernoff was ignoring the flings inthis matter and busy Dismissing the Complaint against the Kickham Lay 5Offices. The aforesaid law firm was practicing the same crimes again. 30. The plaintiff shall file another complaint about the recent crimes against the Kickhams and their buddies (BUDDYS) in a Federal Court far from the District of Massachusetts for very obvious reasons. The complaints will be in his name only and each member of his Clan will follow with separate complaints of their own. 31. The plaintiff takes license to be a little redundant and borrow some words from one of his favorite artists and fellow Canadian, Leonard Cohen, and state some things that everybody knows. 32, Everybody knows that all the plaintiffs are mentioned in the will of Elaine G. Kickham and are interested patties in the estate and trust of said estate. The partners of GOGUEN, McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP are well aware of that fact and that the partner, James A. McLaughlin, is the Court Appointed Trustee of the trust of the said estate. 33. Everybody knows that all the partners of the law firm of GOGUEN, McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP are their brother’s, James A. McLaughlin, keeper and are well aware of his knowledge of the manner in which the interested parties of the Trust of Elaine Kickham have been offended. All partners are guilty of assisting him in covering up the crimes that the plaintiffs have made them well aware of, 34, Everybody knows that all the partners of the law firm of GOGUEN, McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP. are officers of the court and are obliged to uphold the law and report any crimes that they are aware of, It is not only the law it is morally ethical 35. Everybody knows that a trustee cannot sign off on his own accounts nor can he give other peoples money|to charity and when he gives that money to the Catholic Charities it much offended the plaintiffs First Amendment Rights. The defendants are well aware of the many other crimes and say nothing in the interest of justice. 36, Everybody knows the Kickhams are liars. Once caught the Kickhams merely amend their statements wih different lies and the courts always allow them to escape. Their own signed documents easily isplay the truth., 37. Everybody knows that Uncle Franky is nearly blind and never had a Drivers License. But Car Dealers anf Insurance Agents have no problem putting some bad actor on the road as him with a good driver discount.38, Everybody knows that Aunt Elaine, her sister Jane, and her brother Lawrence have been dead for years. That does not stop the Brookline Savings Bank from keeping a Bank Account open for Elaine. Nor does it stop Comcast from selling Jane shares in their new company. It does cause Smith Barney to not want to admit that they ever knew Lawrence and many lawyers to cover it all up. 39. Everybody knows that the estates of Elaine Kickham, Lawrence Kickham and Jane O”Meara were fraudulently closed by the Kickham Law Offices. 40. Everybody knows that Judge Carey and Judge Langlois should not have heard or Dismissed very valid petitions to reopen said estates because of their interests in the outcome of the matters.. 4, Everybody knows that Jean F. O’Meara has never met Veronica A. Rooney and did not sign the Purchase and Sale Agreement to sell the Beach House within her mother's estate 42, Everybody knows that the Purchase and Sale Agreement of Veronica A. Rooney is a forgery and yet the courts have ordered that the plaintiffs pay Veronica A. Rooney her costs in pursuit of her fraudulent actions. 43. Everybody knows that the Court has ordered the property sold on behalf of the criminals who practiced th forgery. 44, Everybody knows that the plaintiff, David R. Amos, will never allow such a fraudulent transaction as long, as he draws breath. 45, Everybody knows that all the partners of the law firm of GOGUEN, McL.AUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP. are breaking their oath before the Bar and are delaying and denying the plaintiffs for lucrejor malice because of the following statement. 46, Everybody knows thatthe plaintiff has many wiretap tapes that were illegally disposed of by the authorities. ‘The contents of the said Tapes possibly hold great potential to impeach many low men in high places. 47. Everybody knows of the existence of these tapes because the plaintifT copied several of the hearings in Norfolk Probate Court over the Government's tapes and served them upon many of the defendants in this matter. If they retained them they can easily compare them to the rest and see that they are government materials from the same batch.48. Everybody knows that the plaintiff also served upon the ACLU in Boston, The US Attomey Don Feith in New Hampshire and the District Attorney Tim Cruz unmolested original tapes. The FBI in Boston and the Internal Affairs Department of the Massachusetts State Police refused to accept them and the U.S. Attorney Don Feith sent his tapes back claiming that it was a State issue. 49. Everybody knows the Government understands the nature and the depth of the conspiracy. The U.S. Attomey explained it quite well Ex Parte. 50. Everybody knows that the Attomey General Practiced Mail Fraud after he read the oppo: defendant Abigail Shaine’s Motion to Dismiss. 51, Everybody knows that the Assistant Attorney General, Robert L. Quinan Jr. committed perjury in federal and state court and that the evidence was removed from the docket. Every time the plaintiff files it again, it disappears. 52, Everybody knows that only the plaintiff, a layman, filed a proper Notice of Appearance in U.S. District Count while all the lawyers failed and now their clients should sue them because of incompetance.. 53, Everybody knows that the U.S. Attorney attempted to file a Notice of Appearance three time and failed to doit according to law each time. 54, Everybody knows that the lawyer, lan Crawford, committed perjury in U.S. District Court in that he did tee file the Oppositions to the Motions of his client, Abigail Shaine and that the ones that he did file in Norfolk Superior Court have been removed from the public record. 58. Everybody knows that the plaintiff has filed the proof of the Attorney General's Mail Fraud and the Motions of Abigail Shaine with the attached oppositions no less than seven times in various dockets of several courts. With one possible exception all the aforesaid filings have been removed from the public record. 56, Everybody knows that Cardinal Law is complained of in the complaint. Even though the U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan fraudulently edited him out, he still serves his lawyer.‘57, Everybody knows that the Gay Attomey General, Robert L. Quinan Jr. and the purported Lesbian Judge Paula M. Carey are denying a husband and wife of the very rights that they seek in the General Court. 58. Everybody knows that the Senate Committee was appointed to investigate M.G.L. 201B because of the plaintiff's actions. 59. Everybody knows that Robert S. Creedon Jr. is well aware of why the plaintiffs are complaining of Alice Hanlon Peisch’s husband and a great many of his friends. 60, Everybody knows that lawyers are a tight knit bunch of liars that refrain from suing each other but behave like sharks if one becomes exposed the others devour him because of his weakness to conceal the truth. 61, Everybody knows that the Kickham Law Offices Practiced Tax Fraud, 62, Everybody knows that the reason the IRS and the FBI refused to do their job and act within the scope of their employment is because the Kickham Law Offices hid the funds of their ill-gotten gains in the Brookline Savings Bank and William J. Kickham is a well heeled well connected ex FBI Agent, 63. Everybody knows that the interests of many bankers, lawyers, politicians, priests and the Kickham Law Offices many other clients are of more concern to the courts than the rights and interests of one ordinary little family. 64, Everybody knows that the press and the politicians only say what is politically correct in the pursuit of their ‘own ends. Truth is simply lost from recorded history once the witnesses are dead. And everybody knows dead men tell no tales except if they manage to record the truth before passing on. 65. Everybody knows the plaintiff is writing a book about corruption in Boston similar to Michael Fredrickson’s only it is a true story rather than fiction. 66, Everybody knows truth is stranger than fiction and harder to believe 67. Everybody knows that once the truth of a fearless victimized naysayer is finally recognized, the Popes change their view of them and often call them Saints when in truth they were just, simple, serious and sincert folks. No more no less. Check the Testaments of Amos and Mathew before you argue the plaintiff. Everybody knows that the Saints are still arguing over the last words of their Master. Who was that Saul guy anywaywhy do they believe so easily what happened to him on the road alone. Maybe just he ate the wrong mushrooms. 68. Everybody knows twelve men will tell twelve different tales of the same event. That's why it takes twelve people to boil it down to the truth. That is also why the plaintiff seeks a jury and everybody knows it. What one ordinary man says about burning bushes or the foul play of many powerful men is always hard to believe particularly when all maintain that he is the liar. However once a jury listens to their many tales and reads their] words the truth shall surface. 69. Everybody knows that priests will claim the plaintiff is a blasphemer. The plaintiff don't care. He considers ‘most priests as pious philistine pretenders hiding behind a mask of virtue. These hypocritical Pharisees apende Modern Dispensation to evil wrongdoers such as Charles J. Kickham Jr. for a mere hundred grand while he tortures the plaintiffs who are related by blood 70. Everybody knows that these Pharisees twist and interpret other peoples words to suit their own agenda and ‘no other organization in the history of this planet has brought more suffering into the world in the name of a God than the Catholic Church. Priests and lawyers are cut from the same cloth. Both go on and on about all things ethical but never practice what they preach. The plaintiff believes lawyers should wear the same cloth i order that they may be identified more readily. 71, Everybody knows that thus far the plaintiff has yet to meet a worthy opponent with a B.B.O. number to argue with. All lawyers have simply pretended that the plaintiff does not exist or demand him stricken or failing that have the tape of the hearing edited or denied. Prior to filing this document the plaintiff tried to confer wit the defendant, Sumner Gillette, if the defendant had agreed to tell the truth of what he knew the plaintiff would have settled cheap. But not now because rather than discuss the issues the defendant, Sumner Gillette, wanted talk like a tough guy instead of a lawyer. The plaintiff does not respect his potential to settle legal matters in an alternate fashion. It is best they meet in court and argue law. 1072, Everybody knows that Jesus said he was the son of man and he did have a temper although his mama and many priests claim otherwise. The plaintiff finds it interesting that the Catholics overlook the other Mary that followed him. The Templars had a little different take on it. The plaintiff does admire the work of the Catholic, Fyodor Dostoevsky, however mostly from the position that he would love argue many of his opinions for the same reason he is fond of chess with Russians. It is because they think deep and different than he. The plaintiff feels that the man Jesus would have dealt with the Grand Inquisator much differently. Remember the ‘moneychangers in the Church, the plaintiff wonders what he would have done if he had happened in on a Bingo ‘game, Does any priest remember what he said about anyone that would harm a child. The fact that the plaintiff's father was a Mason has no bearing on the plaintiff's thinking, The plaintiff's father would not discuss that organization with him even of his deathbed. That fact and other examples in everyday life C. Max Amos taught his son much about Honour and keeping one’s word. It is not what you say but what you do in deeds that do matter. The plaintiff's father did not compel his freethinking son to join any religious organization. He knew his son well enough to not even try. The plaintiff never did although he looked into many out of curiosity including the Templars and their ties to Scotland and Nova Scotia, The freedom to have no religion is a right a5 well as the freedom to speak of things that one holds in much contempt. The plaintiff finds the Masons an interesting bunch of boys because they are so quiet and secretive. However confessing one’s sins in private toa priest and saying a couple of Hail Marys then giving a hundred grand to St. Mary's don’t get cousin Chucky the hook in the plaintiff's book. The plaintiff has a clear conscience and if he offends someone and is aware oft he begs forgiveness from him or her and then forgives himself whether they do or not. Otherwise the plaintiff's ‘own conscience would cause his demise. The fact that ancient evil cousin Chucky seeks dispensation in the same year that the plaintiff and the Kickham Law Offices were litigating about such matters and the courts assisting the criminals absolutely cemented the Blood Feud between the Amos Clan and the Kickham T BUDDYS forever. Make no mistake this is a BLOOD FEUD and the blood of the Chief of the Clan is being Just ask Cousin Chucky or James Kickham about their meeting with him after he had attended the Shareholders Meeting of the Brookline Savings Bank. The plaintiff sincerely hopes that their Gods damn all wicked priests uand lawyers in the same fashion. If there is ever a Judgment Day, the plaintifT will wager that any God will likely try to duck the meeting with the plaintiff, just like the judges on earth have done. Before the plaintiff | ‘would allow any judgment of him he would have few questions ask about the God's misconduct. No doubt the plaintiff would be stuck in limbo in the hereafter as he once was on earth, in order that the God may save face. 73. Everybody knows that the U.S. Attorney argued Tax Fraud issues Ex Parte within a Civil Rights complaint about the Freedom of Religion. The plaintiff is merely making clear the nature of this complaint. He will wm Tax Fraud with the U.S. Attorney in a future complaint. | 74, Everybody knows that the U.S. Attorney and all the other Feds follow Attorney General Ashcroft’s orders. 75, Everybody knows that Attorney General Ashcroft and everybody else are supervised by the President | George Bush. 76, Everybody knows that the plaintiff notified the President through proper channels almost a year ago that a and a lot of people that he had appointed to act under his authority had some serious problems to work out “t the plaintiff. 77. Everybody knows that the plaintiff notified the Presidents personal counsel Alberto Gonzales that they soon to meet in court with Senators Kerry and Kennedy. The plaintiff has notified the Judiciary of the reasons, 78, Everybody knows that it is not within the outer perimeter of anyone's official duties within the scope of their employment and it is not of discretionary nature for anyone to ignore or offend another persons civil rights. (Civil Resource Manual 33) Immunity does not apply. | 79, Everybody knows all men are equal. No lawyer or anyone else can escape the Constitution and its | jurisdiction over all 80, Everybody knows that one crooked lawyer and a lesbian Judge should not be assisted in criminal acts in order that he go to his grave with dignity and she sees that same sexes are allowed license to marry. 81. Everybody knows only a lawyer could steal money from his family while charging them to do so, then tke it from the Tax Man in a Bank for years, then turn around and give some of it to a Church Charity and “nt 12tax deduction. Ifa layman had tried that, the IRS would promptly crucify him after the Church served him his last rights, The plaintiff demands that his First Amendment Rights be addressed according to his Seventh ‘Amendment Rights before arguing U.S.C. Title 26 and any new Bills are passed in General Court that violate his Fourteenth Amendment Rights and the Fourth Amendment Rights of others. These rights are more important than his right for a reward under the Tax Laws. 82. Everybody knows that not many people will actually read this document, particularly Judge Chernoff who # supposed to according to law. If he had read anything at all the matter would now be resting in the Dockets of USS. District Court, The ones that do read it either won’t believe it or will scramble for some way to prove it false. The plaintiff therefore took license to ramble on for the benefit of his children justin case the crooks he is up against get the better of him and he never sees his Clan again. There are now many men running around with the plaintif’s Durable Power of Attomey. Unless a body floats up, the plaintiff may live forever. Best the kids put a candle in the window but until papa makes it back. Many men are looking out for them. One is iving with them, This document marks the middle of a book where the worm is about to turn on the bad guys. It may get interesting as to how desperate they become now that all crimes are in open view. Sending the Men in Black was interesting in and of itself. 83. Everybody knows that according to law, this document and allo its attachments must remain in the publi record for all to view. 84, Everybody knows thatthe plaintiff loves to ramble and gamble, As a free man he needs no license to do so, either in court or on the road. It was the defendants that picked the fight with him, He gave them fair warning and Judge Carey quoted him. They must deal with his style of litigation. He does not want to act like them, The last thing he would wished to be called is a lawyer. However he is his wife's attorney in fact. Not all lawyers are attorneys nor are all attorneys lawyers. The big difference between this attorney and these lawyers is in their ethical behavi _ Itis for a jury to decide as to whom holds ethics in a higher regard. 85. Everybody knows that the plaintiff is one of those wild colonial boys who don’t abide in quitting particularly when the fight is turning into fun, He was raised heart and soul within the rules of the four F's. 13the Maritimes. He knows not another way and sees no need to explain it to Yankee Carpetbagger such as the lawyers of GOGUEN, McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP. If the Court Appointed Trustee had done his job on June 20, 2002, then there would have been no need to complain of him and his firm in this complaint filed one week later. 86, Everybody knows that it was only because of his default in answering this complaint that the defendant, James A. McLaughlin, broke rank and told some truths on October 16, 2002. Now one year has past and the court appointed trustee and his firm are back to playing dumb. 87. The plaintiffS do not understand what part of M.G.L. 266, the Rules of Professional Conduct or the First ‘Amendment that require an explanation. There is no need for a declaratory judgment to explain such laws toa law firm. 88. Everybody knows that if they choose not to believe the plaintiff's statements then all they have to do is read, the attachments that contain mostly the words of the defendants. If some wait until the press finally puts something in print about the matter it may be to late to exercise damage control to save face.. 89, Everybody now knows what the papa to the plaintiffs has known for a very long time, Some G-men are crooks. He says Good Day and Be Good to his kids and please don’t torture his faithful Indian companion. Just do what he says or the Chief will be mad. Thanks Woody. Later Mama, Papa is off to see the Wizard to ask him to listen to some tapes that the Feds deny exist. Maybe he can make something out off nothing. 90. Everybody knows that the tapes have nothing to do with the offences practiced by, GOGUEN, McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP. However they are unwittingly involved in the conspiracy to cover them up. The plaintiff regards the partners of the law firm as ignorant pawns in a Big Big Game that they could never hope to play. 91. Everybody knows that the tapes may provide some clues to some of Whitey Bulger's crimes. The amount time that the tapes have been in the plaintiff's possession and the locations mentioned on them lend a strongthan destroyed in a proper fashion, The plaintiffs want the tapes off their hands and into some honest and diligent authority's hands, If something bad happens to the plaintiff in the mean time many people will receive ‘many copies immediately thanks to World Wide Web. For obvious reason the U.S.P.S. is not to be trusted with| them, In the meantime the tapes are scattered and well hid by others in some places the plaintiff does not know, 92. Everybody knows that the plaintiff is now trying his hand at playing politics and that politicians have no loyalty whatsoever when it comes down to getting elected or when they are possibly linked to some sort of conspiracy 93. Everybody knows what cards the plaintiff has already shown in the political game, The politicians should call him to show what he has in the hole before he calls them to show their hand. 94. Everybody knows that Senators Kennedy and Kerry, Governor Romney and President Bush are way past too late to raise the stakes. It is time to lay the cards on the table that the plaintiff has dealt them. 95. Everybody knows that the plaintiff paid his two bits to see a bunch of fancy lawyers do a high diving act then tried to settle with them so they would not have to jump. 96. Everybody knows that the plaintiff has instructed his seed that should he fall, they should take what ever assets he has accrued to prime the pump and hire ethical lawyers to keep suing the Bastards forever asa lessom to all lawyers. 97. Everybody knows that the plaintiff won’t do anything without having a little fun and he enjoys playing with words. He does not care if anyone reads this he had to enjoy writing it or it would not have been done. He hag met his goal of one hundred paragraphs within twenty pages © 98. Everybody knows that the plaintiff, David R. Amos, has waited long enough. Iti time to see the jump of] GOGUEN, McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP. The fiddler’s bill for his first melody is long overdue. He is off to play somewhere else. He will invite them along to sing and dance. 99. On or about March 26, 2003 after receiving the defendants first set of documents in this matter and the Jean F. O'Meara matter the plaintiff called the lawyer and Court Appointed Trustee, James A. McLaughlin to inform him of all that is now before the court. However the lawyer would not admit to talking to the plaintiffin 15October of 2002. There was no reason to deny that fact particularly in light of the fact that McLaughlin stated i in court. The trustee also admitted to discussing much with the former trustee's lawyer. It is not proper for him to ignore the beneficiaries employing him to protect their interests. It is only wise to confer with a litigant against him. The plaintiff got the impression that the lawyer was afraid the conversation was being recorded and ‘would not speak to the plaintiff. Therefore the litigants must confer in writing or before the court. It is not possible for the plaintiffs to trust a Trustee that will not speak to them even when it was for the benefit of the trustee. 100, Whereas the partners of the defendant, GOGUEN, McLAUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP. have a bad habit of not filing documents or changing them if they do not like the response, the plaintiff shall file their Motion to Dismiss and this Opposition for them. There is no need for the defendant to file an affidavit, the plaintiff acknowledges their service of the Motion to Dismiss. It was sent on or about June 12, 2003 by U.S. Mail and received on or about Friday the 13" of June 2003. The plaintiffs have responded in the timely fashion of within ten days to a motion sent ten months too late. Wherefore for the above stated reasons, the plaintiffs David R. Amos, Jean F. O’Meara, Max X. Amos and Grace E. Amos demands that the Norfolk Superior Court read this opposition and that: &. The Motion to Dismiss by the defendant, GOGUEN, McL AUGHLIN, RICHARDS & MAHANEY, LLP, be Denied. b. The matter be remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in order that it may properly proceed in a timely fashion without further delay according to federal laws and rules. by Dated: June 23, 2003 David R. Amos Pro Se 153 Alvin Ave. Milton. MA. 02186 (617) 240-6698CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, David R. Amos hereby certify that on June 30, 2003. I delivered in hand an original copy of the enclosed Opposition of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint of the Defendant Giowtien McLaughlin Richards & Mahaney LLP, to the office of the Clerk of Norfolk Superior Court Atier recent conversations with the Court Appointed Trustee, James A. McLaughlin, the Clerk, Mary Hickey. certain federal authorities and the recent Dismissal of the matter on behalf of the Kickhams by Paul Chernot?, | realized that someone must play by the rules even if the lawyers will not. I suspected that James A. McLaughlin would not file this document in any court but rather ignore it as he has done with other documents from in the past and then the clerks destroy the public record of it. Therefore I must do so myself and file it as an exhibit in the matter, and thereby stress testing the Clerk’s ethics one last time. The Norfolk Superior Court should have received a great many of the enclosed documents from U.S. District Court upon remand of the matter ‘The said documents were attached to. an Affidavit filed on December 12, 2002 and the attachments were about one foot thick and hard to overlook. James A. McLaughlin also received an identical copy and another was filed in Norfolk Probate Court in answet to his complaint against us. The Clerks Office of Norfolk Probate Court deliberately destroyed that copy and I have since filed another copy afler the removal of that matter to federal court. It does not matter to me any mor what the clerks of Norfolk County do because I am filing this document in its entirety in a federal court far fro Massachusetts. However the Clerk’s of Norfolk Superior Court have a very serious problem regarding their dealings with me they have failed to provide me with their copy of the tirst Motion of the State Defendants or the filings of the Defendant Abigail Shaine. Prior to leaving the Commonwealth | will have filed an exact copy with the Office of the Judiciary committee in the State House for the General Court to view. Because of the nature of the materials and of their importance and the poor behavior of the clerks and the court guards in Norfolk County, I was dubious about entering their office again. Before doing so I sent some of the documents by fax to certain Members of Congress to prove what Ted Kennedy has denied. I have elected to deliver in hat and offer to show the Clerks and one litigant some of the evidence of mail fraud and a few of the wiretap tapes before filing them in a pending personal injury lawsuit in federal court Valso certity that I delivered in hand a true copy of the attached Opposition to the offices of Sumner B. Gillette, Pro Se, David M. Butler Pro Se at 1359 Hancock Street, Quincy. MA. 02169, All other parties have been in default of an answer to the complaint since the end of August 2002 under Federal Jurisdiction and therefore not entitled to any further notice of my actions. The Norfolk Superior Court lost Jurisdiction over the matter forever the very instant the court allowed the matter to be fraudulently removed to Federal Court by the U.S. Attorney and he started talking about Tax Fraud Ex Parte. The wiretap tapes mentioned within the attached documents are none of my business but nevertheless are of great concern to the courts and me. DOubk Kh wen David R. Amos 153 Alvin Ave Milton. MA 02186 (617) 240-0008