Judicial, Legal And Prosecutorial Misconduct And Ethics And Civil Rights Violations Experienced By Mark Laurence In Rhode Island Courts.
[Kent County Family Court] Justice Murray denied Mark Laurence all his procedural due process rights in a Rule 60 (b) (3),(5), (6) motion to vacate, [Vacate Judgment for Fraud], and awarded full custody of his two minor children, Melissa age 4, and Samuel age 2, to Elaine M. Nadreau, who died on Jan.4, 1960, and denied the father, Mark Laurence visitation as agreed to, prior to his relinquishing of shared custody on April 6, 1999.
In case # K99-206M, Mark Laurence filed a motion to vacate the prior Family Court Judgment, because he was verbally told in front of and by witnesses Vivian Laurence (grandmother) and William Landry (a close friend of instant family) that if he would relinquish his share of custody to Elaine M. Nadreau, he will be given visitation rights. After over 19 months of not being allowed to see his children, on June 30th, 1999 the motion to vacate was filed.
Nadreau’s counsel Nancy J. Oliver of Reilly, Oliver and Olsen Ltd. 22 W. Main St., PO Box 457,Wickford, RI, refused on July 14, 1999 to accept service on behalf of her client, a summons, in violation of Family Court Rule 4(b) and 4 (d) 1 of domestic relations. [Note, also see other complaints regarding Atty. Olsen from this same office] She did however forward notification to Ms. Nadreau that the sheriffs department was attempting to locate her to service her with this summons. When Oliver was served a second time, and advised she was in violation of law by not accepting service, she then complied with the law. Counsel was asked several times to enter an enclosed stipulation and allow visits that were already agreed to between Mark Laurence and Elaine Nadreau and the motion to vacate will be withdrawn. The motion was scheduled to be heard on Aug.16, 1999. Subsequently Attorney Oliver motioned for a continuance and the matter was then set down for Sept. 21, 1999.
On Sept. 21, 1999 the hearing was rescheduled again and Ms. Nadreau did not appear as required by law. The court ordered that Nadreau not leave the state as requested by Mr. Laurence and the transcripts of the April 6, 1999 hearing were ordered. Also at the Sept. 21, 1999 hearing, Ms. Oliver walked over to the bench and placed a document on the bench and said, " Your Honor, this is a statement from DCYF case worker Pam McGloughlin I think you should read this."
Mr. Laurence had no knowledge of this document and asked that Ms. Oliver provide him a copy. No copy was ever received prior to the next court appearance on Oct 15, 1999. That document by DCYF contained false and fraudulent statements.
On Oct. 15, 1999 Ms. Nadreau did not appear again as required by Law. She apparently removes herself and the children form the state according to court records. Attorney Oliver used the excuse that she did not inform her client until a few days after she was ordered by the court not to leave, hence she was nowhere to be found. However the order was issued on Sept. 21,1999 when Ms. Nadreau claimed she could not appear in court, according to Ms. Oliver, because she was home with a very sick child with an ear infection. It seems very skeptical at best that a phone call was never made or returned the day of the hearing. Legally her and her client are one, and in states where the Law is equally enforced, her excuse is totally irrelevant.
Oliver then files a motion to withdraw after claiming her client has fled the state and Pamela McGloughlin of DCYF was unable to locate Nadreau or the children. Attorney Oliver in her motion to withdraw made false and or deliberately misleading statements regarding what she knew and did not know and when.
As unbelievable as this may seem, Judge Murray literally threw the United States Constitution out the window, to bail Attorney Nancy Oliver and her client out and deny Mr. Laurence his constitutional right to consortium. Judge Murray starts by allowing the non-moving party Attorney Oliver only to be heard and first. He refused to enter a default Judgment which Mr. Laurence was entitled to by Law as Nadreau had not appeared in court for a second time and was at this time in contempt of court and also violated the Court Order of Sept. 21, 1999.
What value is a Rhode Island Summons to us non-lawyers? Can you ignore them and Court Orders with impunity? This only goes to prove one more time how corrupt Rhode Island Courts are. If you’re a Pro Se untrained layman, you are supposed to get some latitude. See Estelle v. Gamble 97 SU 285 (1976). But in Rhode Island, they only break the rules for the lawyers in the club who know better and hope the layman does not know the law. Attorney Oliver, contrary to undeniable procedural law [res judicata], was not only allowed to raise issues she could or should have raised in the original petition before the party could say boo, but claimed they meant to raise this issue in the original petition but forgot! ( Res Judicata doctrine means: if you don’t raise and issue which could be raised, it cannot be raised after final judgment. See Mobile Village v. Garganta 730 A 2d 1 (RI 1999) and Richard’s complaint on this site.
Caught Note: In the Garganta case, Judge Michael Higgins illegally REFUSED to properly hear or allow Mr. Garganta to raise relevant issues. Despite the RI Supreme Court's knowledge of this judicial misconduct they still said the doctrine of Res Judicata applied and this known misconduct by Judge Higgins is absent from the Supreme Court opinion. This shows an entrenched pattern of denial of due process, organized crime and deliberate corruption of public information.
This issue refers to Mr. Laurence’s objection to any involvement by DCYF as they were never an involved party in any custody issue in this case. Laurence’s objection under this doctrine was adamantly denied.
Attorney Oliver was informed by Mr. Laurence twice and once by Mr. Laurence’s former attorney Dena Paolino that her client was under an alias name obtained from a dead child from Worcester MA. Ms. Oliver was informed as early as July of 1999 of these facts. On Oct 15, 1999, in an effort to protect her own interest, if Mr. Laurence chose to divulge an additional proof of custody being obtained by fraud, Attorney Oliver submitted the Death Certificate of her client which was a gross violation of the rules of professional conduct concerning client confidentiality. Attorney Oliver put her client and her children on the sacrificial altar to serve her own interests. She denied under oath any prior knowledge regarding the death certificate. Laurence proved undeniably that she was committing perjury but Justice Murray did nothing. Laurence moved to vacate based on blatant fraud. Justice Murray denied his request.
Murray claims Nancy Oliver is under oath when Mr. Laurence requested she be sworn in, yet Murray:
- Never allowed cross -examination.
- Never allowed the moving party to put on any witnesses of his choice subpoenaed into court for the third time.
- Never allowed any exhibits to be entered in by the moving party.
- He actually walked out of the courtroom while Mr. Laurence was trying to present his case.
- He never allowed the moving party proper due process rights before arbitrarily denying all of Mr. Laurence’s requests and granting all of Attorney Oliver’s requests including a restraining order against Laurence.
He awarded custody of Mr. Laurence’s children to a legally dead person and denied visitation to Mr. Laurence who is living? This was nothing short of a kangaroo court common for pro-se litigants. The end result according to the record is a person legally dead since Jan 4th 1960, Elaine Nadreau, has custody of Mr. Laurence’s two minor children and the living are denied visiting rights agreed to in the original action. It also must be made clear at no time did Attorney Oliver introduce any evidence to even challenge the fact the original contractual agreement was entered into, and only entered into by Laurence to relinquish custody in consideration for visiting rights.
It appears contracts in Rhode Island are worthless unless you’re connected to the right Judge and can pay for justice. See Garganta v Union Central for another case of a contract made void through carefully crafted legal misconduct in our courts.