SJC Upholds Cover-Up of Due Process Violations by Family Court Judge
By John Flaherty
President of Liberty Bell Union

   On November 12, 2000, MassNews reported that the Appeals court had reversed a criminal contempt judgment against Bill Leisk, for which he had served 30 days in jail, but only on the ground that Leisk had not effectively waived his right to an attorney without being advised that an attorney was available. It did not address the due process violations of Judge Kopelman of the Norfolk Family Court but remanded the case back to Family Court for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court has approved the Appeals Court decision.

   Bill Leisk immediately appealed the decision to the Supreme Judicial Court because the Appeals Court neither wrote a published decision nor one that clearly showed the true errors of the lower court. The unpublished decision was a clear cover-up of the horrendous constitutional due process violations suffered by Leisk in a kangaroo criminal procedure administered by Judge David H. Kopelman of the Norfolk Family Court.

   Such due process violations occur repeatedly in Mass. Family Courts generally against fathers because of a clear anti-father agenda in the Family Courts well, known to any impartial observer. The decision was written by Appeals Court Justice Fernende R.V. Duffly who was a Family Court judge before her appointment to the Appeals Court in 2000. She sought futilely during Leisk's “Oral Argument” to find another excuse to reverse the ill-contrived contempt judgment against him rather than expose the horrendous violations of a one-time fellow Family Court Judge. Devising an unpublished appeal that essentially blamed ‘pro se' defendant Leisk for not adequately waiving his right to an attorney was her corrupt way out.

   Bill Leisk was quite able to recognize his rights and Judge Kopelman's gross denial of fundamental due process under his kangaroo criminal contempt proceedings that immediately landed Leisk in jail for 30 days. Leisk's legal competency is evident in his ability to write an appeal and reverse Kopelman's contempt judgment- in spite of Justices who would prefer to have his pleadings suppressed.

• The Trial Court's ‘Errors' that were ignored by the Appeals Court –and now by the SJC- were clearly briefed to both higher courts with proof. They were:
  
  Family Court Judge Kopelman's ignoring due process requirements, regardless whether or not a defense attorney is present, were:
  Stating within the first couple of minutes of the hearing that this was a criminal contempt hearing where Leisk could be incarcerated (a hearing that took all of 5 or 10 minutes) yet offered Leisk no counsel nor a waiver of counsel.
  Refusing Leisk's request for a jury trial or any trial.
  Refusing to swear anyone in.
  Refusing to allow Leisk to cross-examine the witness, call witness (his daughter), but took unsworn testimony of ex wife's lawyer.
  Virtually prosecuting the case himself, asking all the questions and ignoring Leisk's objections to the hearsay evidence invoked by the trial judge's own questions!
  Ignoring testimony of Leisk's exwife's suppressed statement that she initially agreed with the Hawaii trip.
  Ignoring the previous NO Contempt finding of J. Harms on the same exact issue some three weeks previously when Harms said, “He can buy 12 tickets… you (the mother) are to tell your daughter not to go”(the mother had full legal custody).
  Ignoring the fact that Leisk took no further part in his daughter's trip beyond initially buying the tickets as a promised birthday gift, and finally.
  Finding Leisk in contempt stating in his judgment, “purchasing the aforesaid round trip tickets to Hawaii for his daughter, the defendant intentionally and willfully violated a clear, unambiguous order of this Court and is therefore Guilty of contempt" in spite of the fact that the parent's written agreement states that its terms can be altered under mutual agreement - it was (initially!!!); and the agreement says nothing about restricting buying or gifting of tickets, bicycles, cash, etc.

   SJC neglects its constitutional duty

   The SJC is Massachusetts last judicial resort to clarify the constitutional due process rights in our state's trial courts through its published case law to which lower court judges must adhere and thereby assure the public of constitutional justice. Unfortunately the SJC's dismissal of Leisk's appeal is a clear withdrawal from its constitutional obligations of judicial clarification to Family Court judges. It has shown that it will maintain an obvious agenda in our Family Court system of disenfranchising fathers from their children and their constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

   Unfortunately, fathers are not part of the correct “PC group” for the attention of the SJC. Perhaps the SJC was simply too preoccupied with their legislative determinations.

Father Jailed for Buying Airline Ticket