Atty Barbara Johnson asserts the following:
LETTER TO JUSTICES MARGARET MARSHALL, SEAN M. DUNPHY, CATHERINE SABAITIS, LISA A. ROBERTS, EDWARD DONNELLY, AND DOROTHY GIBSON
I am writing and filing this highly unusual letter in three cases:
All three men know each other and of each other's cases - There is no breach of confidentiality.
Smith v. Smith, Plymouth Probate & Family Court, NO. 00D-0000-DV1
Jones v. Jones, Middlesex Probate & Family Court, NO. 11D-1111DV1
Doe v. Doe, Suffolk Probate & Family Court, NO. 22D-2222-DV1
As you all, I am assuming, know, I am under personal and professional attack by the BBO because I am outspoken regarding the injustice throughout the Probate & Family Court system across the Commonwealth. I am old. I have run out of patience and time. On 1 March 2004, nineteen days from today my proposed findings of fact and rulings of law are due at the BBO. My days are numbered thereafter until the BBO will recommend, I also assume, disbarment because they and whichever powers are behind the Bar Counsel's petition for discipline are unhappy with my exercising my constitutional right to political speech and free expression.
Therefore, I have to act fast. The usual fear that strikes most attorneys, to wit, that they shall be reported to the Bar, has no longer any significance in my life. I have been stripped of fear. I am dealing with reality.
The Smith case: Yesterday, 10 February 2004, was Day 1 of the Smith divorce trial. Consolidated with the divorce was a trial on a Complaint for Contempt brought by Wife Smith against Husband Smith on 12 December 2003.
On 18 November 2003, Judge Sabaitis had found Husband Smith in contempt of not paying alleged out-of-pocket medical costs of $865. Husband Smith has insisted no bills by medical practitioners were ever presented to him. Wife's attorney, G H ["H"], simply wrote the amount on the Complaint. That is not evidence. At no time was Husband Smith allowed to cross-examine his accusers; at no time was Wife required to produce evidence that she had expended $865 out of pocket for medical expenses. The December 22nd Complaint for Contempt was based on the November 18th order.
Yesterday, while cross-examining Wife, the first time since 2002 that she had been put on the stand, Judge Sabaitis refused to allow me to ask about what bills and/or expenses comprised the $865. She said the issue had been adjudicated and that it was res judicata. I responded that the first order was unlawful, in that no evidence had been taken to reach the determination of contempt and that an unlawful order is void ab initio, and therefore Husband Smith had no need to comply with it. I offered to supply her a brief. She did not want one.
Further, my attempts to cross-examine Wife on one of her Financial Statements was also aborted by Judge Sabaitis. The cross-examination is far from complete, but given the injudicious rulings of Judge Sabaitis thus far, the prognosis of that examination is not good. Clearly her notions of due process do not comport with those of the highest courts in the Commonwealth and our country.
One of the judge's colleagues on the bench, Judge Prudence McGregor, recently in Panaro v. Grady, 31 M.L.W. 391, slip op. at 56 (Lawyers Weekly, No. 15-009-02 (88 pages) (Bristol Probate & Family Court) (Docket No. 01D-0186-DV1), gave custody to the father forthwith because the mother lied on her Financial Statements.
Wife Smith has similarly lied on her Financial Statements. Husband Smith has gathered documentary proof of the prevarications. If he is not entitled to cross-examine on the items in the Financial Statements, there is no sense of the court to make the filing of them mandatory. Inequitable asininity is both costly to both clients and their counsel, and unacceptable for any system purporting to be a justice system.
Husband Smith seeks a mistrial and the recusal of Judge Sabaitis. Interlocutory appeal would be futile. Rubber-stamping and summary dismissals are routine.
The Jones case: Husband Jones and Wife Jones, both lawyers, were divorced several years ago. The Joneses have two children, of whom Wife has physical custody. (One, being physically abused by both his mother and his sister, is quite unhappy in that custody and looks forward to being put in the custody of his father.) And Wife has possession of the once-marital home, worth well over $600,000. Husband Jones is renting a walk-up apartment in a rundown building in ___ Fortunately his artistic talent and taste are impeccable so the interior is inviting, warm, spotless, and comforting to him and those visiting.
When post-trial financial matters began to consume more time than the original divorce proceedings, I was approached by Husband Jones for representation. Husband Jones is living primarily off of partial disability insurance payments (approximately $38,000), as a result of ____ due to [dangerous virus]. During the marriage, he and Wife were law partners in downtown Boston. Since the divorce, both are solo practitioners. His law practice, now in a home-office, has shrunk to the point where his earnings from it are de minimus (under $_____Wife's, on the other hand, now located on ___ in ____, has grown to the point where she has grossed approximately $230,000 annually during the last two years.
Despite the distinctive difference in earning power and income, Husband Jones has been ordered to pay her child support to that extent where he had to use all of his retirement funds to meet the excessive court orders and is in jeopardy of not being able to pay his own rent each month. So dire is his financial existence that he is plagued monthly by late charges and overdraft payments.
Judge Edward Donnelly and with the recent change in assignments, Judge Gibson are currently reviewing the bank statements for Wife's personal and law-office accounts, which Husband Jones produced a few weeks ago when he was seeking court intervention with Wife's interference with his disability payments and putting him at the brink of eviction. Wife filed that day a motion to jail him. It was euphemistically a mean-spirited act with no justifiable basis.
That day, Judge Donnelly, who has quite a pleasant demeanor and appears to listen very well, said he would give us a decision by the end of that week. That decision we have yet to receive. Fortunately, I was able to convince the disability payor to release Husband Jones's check, which he received only yesterday, and he had been able to convince the landlady to await his rent payment, so tragedy has been avoided this month.
But there is still over his head contempt charges due to grossly inequitable past court orders. That he should be required to pay Wife child support when her income is between 400 and 500 percent greater than his is remarkable and smacks of the invidious gender discrimination against men in the probate and family courts about which I have been so outspoken and the courts have tried so hard to hide.
That he has not been, of course, awarded alimony because of his disability is unconscionable. Were he not male, an award of alimony of at least $2000 a week, given Wife's proven gross annual income of approximately one quarter of a million dollars, would have been instantly granted.
Digression: The Chief Justice has published many statements of late regarding the evaluation of judges and of the high quality of their performance. I have correspondence with the SJC person in charge of the survey. As a result of that correspondence and communication with her, I can confidently state that the survey was made of only selected lawyers, those friendly with the court.
The anxiety caused Husband Jones is considerable. I seek not only a timely resolution of the matters before Judges Donnelly and Gibson but also a fair one, one taking into consideration the wide disparity between the income of Wife and that of Husband Jones.
The Doe case: I became successor counsel (as I am on the other two cases) when the husband's case was sinking into the quicksand of the probate and family court in front of Judge Nancy M. Gould. Between 10 June 2002 and 9 May 2003, 59 days of divorce trial were heard by Judge Lisa A. Roberts. Numerous posttrial pleadings were due within the first 6 weeks after trial and the proposed findings of fact and rulings of law were due after the next 6 weeks, i.e., by 19 August 2003. It is now 11 February 2004, six months after the proposed findings and rulings were submitted by the parties and no decision from the court has issued.
The Doe case was fraught with accusations of severe sexual abuse by the mother's father, to whose out-of-state home the children were allowed to be removed without either the consent of Husband Doe or an evidentiary hearing; with the mother's repeated dishonesty and highly questionable conduct (the mother is also a lawyer); and with evidence of public corruption.
Presently, the mother is bearing the child of a man not her husband, Doe's [children] are still suffering; Husband Doe is powerless to come to the aid and rescue of his children; the courts have refused to act in the children's best interests at any time throughout the entire span of the divorce proceedings.
I fear that the Doe decision will languish until nothing will be salvageable: the children will be forever wounded and Husband Doe will be completely broken.
A decision must forthcome soon. The court is playing cruelly with the lives of the children and Husband Doe. The mother frankly is quite happy with her new boyfriend and has jumped the gun in creating her new family. Her law practice in ____ is flourishing. She, like Wife Jones, is grossing well over $200,000.
Conclusion: Each of the women in the three above cases has repeatedly filed fraudulent Financial Statements and each of the women in the above cases has falsely charged her husband with abuse, making the immediate award of child custody to the fathers appropriate, as in Panaro v. Grady, a wise and measured decision.
The women have falsely complained to the police, sought and got restraining orders, and brought criminal charges a minimum of a dozen times between them. Fortunately all charges against the men were ultimately dismissed.
These three cases are only at the current top of my repertoire of anecdotes of the discriminatory actions in probate and family court. Because of my activism, I have heard of 100s more, almost, as, and more severe than these.
Something must be done. Platitudes are not enough. Musical chairs of incestual political appointments from committee to committee must be stopped. New voices, if you will, must be allowed into the arena to be heard.
By their attorney,
11 February 2004
Barbara C. Johnson, Esq.
Andover, MA 01810-4102
Case 1 --The Smith Case: Judge Sabaitis called a mistrial on Day 3 of the trial, recused herself, and ordered that Johnson be removed as defense counsel. When Johnson originally wrote the Epilogue, the trial had not yet resumed and Johnson still represented her client. Therefore Judge Roberts, assigned as a replacement judge, recused herself from the case at the request of Johnson's client. Negotiations -- on and off -- were still underway. Now, in 2008, Johnson has no knowledge of what has occurred in Case 1.
Case 2 -- The Jones Case: Gibson (1) vacated -- without notice to Johnson -- the mortgage Jones gave Johnson for her fees and (2) allowed to the Wife a $250,000 ex parte attachment on Jones's interest in the marital property. Johnson jumped up and down and Gibson reduced it to $25,000. Amazingly the attachment was for FUTURE arrearages the Husband might incur. Johnson reported Gibson to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The complaint was dismissed. Whether there was an investigation is unknown for SECRECY is the invisible middle name of the commission.
And Donnelly, calling Jones's disability "wages," assigned half of the them to the Wife, leaving her with over a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS ANNUAL INCOME and Jones with $19,200 BEFORE taxes. Jones reported Donnelly to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The complaint was dismissed. Whether there was an investigation is unknown because of the SECRECY.
Meanwhile, the couple's son wanted to live with his father. His mother's behavior was reprehensible. We worked on strategy for a while . . . and she relented.
Lots of delightful happenings arranged by Jones a few summers ago for his son. The son then went to live with Jones and began school (an excellent one) around the corner. He made friends immediately, had play dates, and the little girls in his class gave him their phone numbers!
The morning of the first night Mom was to have the son, she called Jones and said she wanted him to take the son. Apparently she had a date that night which was more important. Jones did not ask for a modification of child support, believing that Mom would nix the plan, since she really wants the money more thn she wants the son.
Jones said, "Hey, the child support is ransom. It's actually costing me more because I'm naturally buying him food and supplies and so on. But my son is worth it!! I'm not going to let money stand in my way of getting his mother to go along with our plan."
Case 3 -- The Doe Case: Premature for Barb to say anything on this website at this time. After the trial but before the divorce became final, the mother gave birth to her boyfriend's child and bought a new home.
We still would love to see Judge Roberts removed from the bench. She acted criminally, by using her office to aid and abet the conversion of thousands upon thousands of Doe's dollars in an escrow account by Attorney Gerald L. Nissenbaum, E. Chouteau Merrill (who became a judge in the middle of all this), and Doe's wife.
It has been problematic in getting authorities to move against her for criminal conduct. We shall not stop! Back to top
Judge Livingstone appointed in 2002. In 5 years he has the following distinctions:
BOSTON -- Systemic problems allowed an innocent Massachusetts man to be labeled a deadbeat dad and sent to jail. Team 5 Investigates' Rhondella Richardson reported that it happened to John Caliri.
"I wake up in the morning and I go to bed at night, knowing that I've been in jail because of something I did not do, and I don't deserve it," said Caliri. Caliri was sentenced to 90 days in jail after he was accused of falling eight weeks behind on child support payments. "There was a balance of $2,240," Caliri said. He has proof of a good payment history. But problems came last spring with his new job at Daniel's Townline Pizza in Weymouth.
Townline Pizza garnished child support from Caliri's wages but never sent the money to the Department of Revenue for his ex-wife and three children. He went to court last month to explain it all but instead went to jail.
"Judge Livingstone heard the case, and he found me in contempt, and I was absolutely floored," he said. Townline Pizza failed financially and closed in July. Manhattan Deli opened in September. The new owner told Team 5 Investigators that the child support issue is just one of the problems the old place had.
Deli owner Ari Black said bill collectors for food vendors still visit looking for the previous owner.
For court, the Department of Revenue provided Caliri with a letter stating that $2,240 had been withheld in pay. The case is under review to see what enforcement action, if any, officials can take against Daneil Hoyng of Townline Pizza.
"This person who took the money out continues to walk the streets, free," Caliri said. Caliri said that he is also furious with Judge Michael Livingstone's ruling and attitude. "He told me if I wanted to work at a pizza place, Papa Gino is hiring down the street," he said.
State District Court Judge Denise Pratt is under investigation, accused of backdating court records to make it appear that she issued rulings and filed court documents sooner than she actually did, according to county officials. Back to top
A state district judge in East Texas has resigned following accusations that she used text messages to coach a prosecutor, displayed a prejudice against some attorneys and met with jurors who were deliberating criminal trials. Elizabeth E. Coker did not admit to guilt or fault as part of her agreement with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The commission announced Monday that Coker has taken an immediate leave of absence and will resign. AND, she had help. She was acting in collusion with former Polk County Assistant District Attorney Kaycee Jones. Jones has since been elected as a state district judge for Polk, Trinity and San Jacinto counties. Back to top
A Detroit judge from a legendary legal family is probably wishing he kept his black robe on. Third Circuit Judge Wade McCree, who specializes in sexual misconduct cases, admitted he texted a shirtless photo of himself to his bailiff's cellphone, where her husband found it."Hot dog, yep that's me," McCree told Charlie LeDuff, a former New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who now reports for MyFoxDetroit. If that isn't enough, a later news story says he impregnated a witness. Back to top
By Brad Hamilton New York Post May 7, 2006 - The state court watchdog is investigating charges that Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Marilyn Diamond changed official transcripts, allegedly to help cover up favorable rulings she made for pals, The Post has learned. The Commission on Judicial Conduct interviewed court reporter Maurice Schwartzberg two weeks ago - and he admitted making "substantial revisions" to transcripts at the judge's request in one case.
By Michele Mcphee New York Daily News Daily News Police Bureau Chief Saturday, September 14th, 2002 - A criminal profiler who analyzed threatening letters sent to a Manhattan judge has concluded that the judge wrote them herself, the Daily News has learned. Since Acting Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond reported the first of the bizarre threats three years ago, she has been guarded virtually around-the-clock by NYPD detectives or Supreme Court officers, according to law enforcement sources. "She has a serious problem. She thrives on attention. She had a security escort to her daughter's wedding, she's very impressed with that". Bookstaver (a spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration) defended Diamond's need for security, but would not discuss the cost to taxpayers for three years of 24-hour-a-day protection.
By Brad Hamilton New York Post December 25, 2005 - A federal judge - citing 24 alleged illegal acts - has ordered embattled Manhattan jurist Marylin Diamond and two associates to enter settlement talks with a family that claims the trio stole hundreds of millions from an elderly art heiress. The judge ruled the heiress' surviving relatives showed enough proof of two dozen fraudulent acts by Diamond's co-trustee of the family trust, Janet Neschis, and another associate to allow their racketeering lawsuit to go forward.
By Brad Hamilton New York Post January 16, 2005 - EXCLUSIVE - The FBI is investigating allegations that heiress and alleged welfare cheat Linda Jacobs was pals with the judge who gave her custody of her two sons. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond awarded Jacobs custody of her teen sons, Jason and Jeffrey, in 1999 even though the boys told a court-appointed shrink that their mom beat and abused them. Diamond ignored those claims and their pleas to live with their father, Gary Jacobs, due to her friendship with their mother, according to the boys and the father. "It's a corrupt endeavor, what happened here," said Jason, 17, a private-school senior who has said his mother is a wealthy welfare cheat who collects benefits but doesn't buy food for him or his brother.
By Brad Hamilton New York Post October 31, 2004 - Embattled Manhattan Supreme Court judge Marylin Diamond has made a multimillion-dollar settlement offer to an Israeli research center that claims she and her ex-law partner ripped off millions it stood to inherit, sources close to the deal said. Diamond made the offer last week even as she and ex-partner Janet Neschis were battling to get the center's 3-year-old lawsuit tossed out of Manhattan federal court. The renowned Weizmann Institute of Science claims in court papers that it was due to inherit about $8 million from wealthy art collector Natasha Gelman upon her death in 1998. But the institute claims it lost out after Diamond and Neschis got their hands on the elderly woman's vast fortune.
By Helen Peterson New York Daily News March 24, 2004 - A Manhattan judge already under fire for alleged ethics violations was cited yesterday for conflict of interest by a state appeals court. The Appellate Division found that state Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond wrongly withheld information about her stock holdings in a suit she presided over.
Brad Hamilton New York Post March 21, 2004 - The man whose case is at the center of a federal probe of Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond told the state panel in charge of disciplining jurists that the judge is a liar, The Post has learned. Jerry Jung, 56, said he told the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct this week that Diamond lied when she wrote to a top state judge that she was "like a daughter" to his multimillionaire art collector cousin Natasha Gelman, who died in 1998. He alleges that Diamond and her former law partner, Janet Neschis, used their positions to loot Gelman's estate - once worth more than $1 billion, he estimates - by forging his cousin's signature on a trust document. Jung is currently suing both women in Manhattan federal court, and sources said the FBI is investigating both Diamond and Neschis. The two did not return calls.
By Greg B. Smith and Bob Port New York Daily News February 10, 2004 - Justice Marylin Diamond is hands down Manhattan Supreme Court's queen of courtroom conflicts. She appointed her former law partner and close friend to handle a sick man's legal affairs. That same friend oversaw a trust that later awarded Diamond $1.1 million. She hired an engineer who was a witness in a case she heard to work on her apartment building, not disclosing her actions until after she had ruled in favor of the party that had called the engineer. And 19 times since 2000, she has heard civil cases while she or her husband owned stock in one party - without disclosing her financial ties to the opposing side. Diamond refused repeated requests from the Daily News for an interview and did not respond to written questions. "I think Judge Diamond is absolutely corrupt," said David Cohen, a former assistant U.S. attorney and practicing lawyer in New York for 40 years who represents several clients challenging Diamond in court.
by Greg B. Smith and Bob Port New York Daily News February 7, 2004 - One-third of state Supreme Court justices who hear Manhattan's big-money civil lawsuits have failed to disclose their personal conflicts of interest in recent cases, a Daily News investigation has found. A dozen judges ruled in favor of companies in which they, or their families, owned stock.
By Brad Hamilton New York Post January 18, 2004 - The state court system is investigating charges that embattled Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Marylin Diamond lied about her relationship with an art heiress to loot the woman's trusts.
By Brad Hamilton New York Post January 11, 2004 - EXCLUSIVE - The FBI is probing powerful Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond and two colleagues on the bench - Justices Shirley Kornreich and Judith Gische - for allegedly doling out judicial favors to friends and associates, sources close to the case said.
By Brad Hamilton New York Post November 13, 2003 - A high-powered divorce attorney is being investigated by the FBI and the state-court inspector general for alleged influence peddling after he gave campaign money to embattled Judge Marylin Diamond and hired her law clerk while arguing a case before her, The Post has learned.
By Michele Mcphee Daily News Police Bureau Chief October 8, 2003 - Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond thinks she needs protection against a former litigant - but a federal judge doesn't see it that way. Diamond's bid yesterday for an order of protection against Wall Street researcher Anthony DeRosa was rejected by Manhattan Federal Magistrate Judge Theodore Katz. "If Judge Diamond has not done anything wrong, what is she so afraid of? I'm flattered that she is intimidated by an average New York City guy who is exposing who she really is - a liar, a crook and a thief," DeRosa said yesterday.
By Brad Hamilton New York Post July 13, 2003 - The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking at stock purchases by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Diamond and her husband, The Post has learned. Documents detailing how the couple separately bought into Verizon and Price Communications in 2002 - the same year the two companies merged in a $2 billion deal - were sent to the commission last week by Wall Street researcher Anthony DeRosa, who is privately investigating the judge.
By Michele Mcphee Daily News Police Bureau Chief April 3, 2003 - The Commission on Judicial Conduct has dismissed more than a dozen complaints against Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Marylin Diamond, even as the FBI opened a case into whether she engaged in potential conflicts of interest from the bench. The commission, which is run by Gerald Stern, dismissed all of the complaints without contacting the people who wrote his agency letters. Instead, Stern's agency sent a form letter that read in part, "There was 'insufficient indication of judicial misconduct.'" Yesterday, Stern refused to comment. "I cannot discuss complaints as a matter of law," he said. Back to top
October 31, 2005
Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications Kansas Judicial Center
301 West Tenth Avenue
Topeka, KS. 66612
Dear Commission Members:
I am writing to file a formal complaint against Labette County (Parsons) District Judge, Daniel Brewster who presided over our post divorce case involving child support and visitation issues from early 1994 through late 1998. At the time of my divorce my two boys' ages were 15 and 13 while my daughter, Shara, was 5. Due to the tremendous problems with Judge Brewster and inability to get anything accomplished, I was forced to use five different attorneys over this time period. Each had the same complaints about Judge Brewster but no one could motivate the man to carry out his sworn duty as a District Judge.
Throughout our lengthy case, Judge Brewster continually demonstrated that he didn't give a hoot about his job. He never showed up on time and when he did finally arrive he promptly met privately with both attorneys in a back room. I regularly complained about this practice to no avail. My ex-wife admittedly was doing her best to estrange our daughter from me. Postponements were requested on a ridiculously regular basis by her attorneys in successful attempts to further that estrangement. Each were granted by Brewster without the slightest debate. It seems that he only wanted to go home to his own family but had no empathy for an exemplary father wanting to spend time with his own child.
Throughout the course of this case, my ex-wife, Karen Knaup, was continually uncooperative with the judge of which each of my attorneys complained about vehemently. Several Contempt of Court Motions were filed against her over the five years but none were acted upon by Judge Brewster. Karen's damaging and dysfunctional parenting during this time was clear to everyone involved in the case including Judge Brewster although he simply didn't have the will and courage to act. Some of these professionals I will list below:
1. Dr. Jack Martin, Labette County Mental Health Director
2. Pittsburg Police Chief, Michael Hall
3. Wichita Child Psychologist, Dr. Jeanne Erikson
4. Parsons (Kansas) School District Administration
5. Attorney Stephen Wilhoft who was finally appointed as my daughter's Guardian Ad Litem after my prodding and complaining to Brewster for two years to do so!
All of these professionals and more eventually ended up resigning over their frustration in helplessly watching Karen run roughshod over Brewster's courtroom without consequence. Each was also threatened with litigation by Karen as was Judge Brewster himself, but still no action by Brewster!
I won't go into my ex-wife's problems only to say that a real history of mental illness exists in her family including her father, Robert Noble's confinement to a psychiatric hospital in the mid 1980s. Robert had always freely admitted that his daughter, Karen, was indeed "mentally ill". Job terminations have followed her throughout her adult life as I supplement her income with "child" support. My legal fees throughout this period of time in fighting for my daughter exceeded $30000 and placed me in severe financial debt. Even though my visitation rights were not enforced by Judge Brewster, he had no problem ordering child support totaling $1500 per month. Keep in mind that I have always had joint custody of all my children and legal visitation rights but joint custody and a visitation schedule means nothing IF the residing judge does not act to enforce them! As I said, each of my attorneys were competent and all of them, together with the professionals named above, complained bitterly about Judge Brewster's inaction and apathy.
It is appropriate that I am submitting this complaint on my daughter's 17th birthday. As it stands, I have lost her entire childhood and probably her entire life due to the continuing psychological damage and "brainwashing" at the hands of her mother. I am sure that if my rights had been enforced, the result would have been much more happier and healthier for all concerned. The many innocent parties injured in this case deserve a thorough and objective investigation into Judge Brewster's conduct according to Judicial Code # 609 as there is no doubt that our judicial system failed miserably in this case. I charge Judge Daniel Brewster with gross dereliction of duty and misconduct according to Canons 1, 2 and 3 being violated on a regular basis. It is shameful that his career will no doubt be celebrated upon his approaching retirement when he has left such a pathetic legacy. I thank you all for your time and serious consideration to this complaint as I await your reply. Back to top
Sincerely, Dan Knaup