Court Update: Petition for Review on TRO & PI and more…

image So…  more updates.  Real quick cause work:

Denied – My motion #76 (Judge Budd, reconsider).  No surprise there, so filing petition for review (or a complete package with bookmarks and appendixes).

Denied – My petition for review (2013-J-0355) of Curran’s refusal to sanction Fitzpatrick and of stopping the judicial process due to my being an indigent.

On Judge Budd:

Backstory: about a year into the freeze-out, I found out that Beth Hovey, our head of editorial at the time, was leaving the company.  Now a lot can break, but how bad must things be in order for a head of editorial to leave one of the most exciting developments in scientific publication?!  So I decided to take a very carefully calculated step of changing Moshe’s password on his email account and demanding that we speak.

Being an equal partner in the business and the Domain Name Holder on the jove.com domain, that was straightforward.  But, instead of engaging me as one would expect an adult, Moshe filed for a preliminary injunction to get access to his email account (arguably a reasonable step).  The unreasonable part is that he also asked for a) the domain to be handed over along with b) a restraining order enjoining me from talking to our employees and his wife.  Restraining order?  Really?

So, because it was an emergency hearing, I had no time to prepare.  I show up.  It’s 3:30.  Judge Kimberly Budd rules quickly to grant full relief (Paper #16: TRO) asked by Fitzpatrick.  Whoa…

Now it’s pretty dramatic to grant a restraining order and an injunction.  Mind you, that such things should be no broader than required (Wiki-Law).  But I can sort of understand (although I still disagree) – you get an unprepared pro se litigant dragged into court on one side, a reputable lawyer on the other.  The Judge effectively got only one side of the story and whether due to internal politics, proximity of end of day, or just concern over possibility of damage, took a very conservative approach of granting the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.  After all – they are temporary and preliminary, right?

So that I understand.  But then I filed several motions to clarify what is going on.  Paper #42, then Paper #61, then Paper #76 – all denied.  Well, this is where our judicial system gets to work: I just filed a petition for review of 76 (Petition Folder).  Let’s see what happens.

About Judge Curran

So this is strange.  The Appeals Court denied my petition for review, but I received this ruling on Paper #81, despite Judge Curran ordering to strike #81 (Paper #82).  Huh?  On top of that, the case referenced in the ruling on #81 (link) doesn’t seem relevant – the issue is whether court can deny justice to an indigent.  No mention of that in the case from what I could see.

Next step: petition for review with Supreme Court of Massachusetts putting all of Judge Curran’s decisions into question: sanctioning Fitzpatrick, discovery, etc.

Another option: was recently suggested to me by a former Israeli attorney of 17 years to complain to the Boston Bar association about Fitzpatrick.  I like the idea.

Options options options 🙂

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under JoVE, Legal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s