My Complaint to Board of Overseers About Ms. Melican

 My Complaint to Board of Overseers About Ms. Melican  

                           

Attorney and Consumer Assistance Program                                                                 Office of the Bar Counsel                                                                                                  99 High Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110 

Re: Margaret M. Melican, BBO #342100

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to complain about Margaret M. Melican. Esquire. Her BBO number is seen above.

Ms. Melican has engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. She has engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. She has engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law.

Because Ms. Melican is a lawyer and a former judge, she assumes legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. Her misconduct could suggest an inability to perform her responsibilities as a lawyer.

Background

I am a writer. I wrote about the efforts by Mr. Gaffney to close down a community center in a Black neighborhood. A blogger, Turtleboy, supported what I consider Mr. Gaffney’s racist efforts.  Mr. Gaffney is now suing me for defamation.

I attempted to depose the blogger Turtleboy in order to obtain evidence for my defense. Ms. Melican, Turtleboy’s counsel, moved for protective orders.

Misconduct by Ms. Melican

1.     On August 3, 2016 Ms. Melican sent to the Court an Emergency Motion for a Protective Order to prevent the deposing of her client Turtleboy. The Deposition  was scheduled for August 10, 2016. Her Emergency Motion did not have my Opposition Memo.  (Exhibit 1)

2.      I sent my Opposition Memo to the Emergency Motion to the Court by hand on August 8, 2016.  (Exhibit 2)

3.     The Court never ruled on the Emergency Motion for a Protective Order and the Deponent did not appear on August 10, 2016 at the still scheduled Deposition. (Exhibit 3)

4.     On August 11, 2016 I sent to Ms. Melican an email saying that some proceedings took place without the Deponent at the scheduled Deposition. (Exhibit4)

5.     On August 16, 2016 Ms. Melican filed a second Motion for Protective Order for Turtleboy.  (Exhibit 5)

6.     Incredibly Ms. Melican did NOT send a copy of the second Motion for a Protective Order to me. Ms. Melican sent her second Motion for a Protective Order directly to the Court without allowing the Defendant to see and write an Opposition Memo.

7.      The list of Rule 9A documents for the second Motion for Protective Oder filed by Ms. Melican does not have within it  my Opposition Memo. (Exhibit 6)

8.     The list of Rule 9A documents does contain a listing of a Certificate of 9A Compliance. A copy of this Certificate was never sent to the Defendant. Ms. Melian’s Certificate of 9A Compliance is false as she never allowed the Defendant an opportunity to write an Opposition Memo. The Certificate is a form of perjury.

9.     The evidence for this perjury is not only the omission of any mention of the Defendant’s Opposition Memo in the Rule 9A List of Documents, but also in the timeline of Ms. Melican Motion.   

The date of Ms. Melican inquiry regarding the scheduled deposition was August 10, 2016. (Exhibit 4). Even if she had written the Motion for second Protective Order on August 10, 2016, Ms. Melican filed her Motion for Protection on August 16, 2016. The date of filing is less than 10 days per Court Rules she must allow the Defendant to write a Memorandum of Opposition.

10.  The Certificate of 9C Compliance also listed in the List of 9A documents is also is false and a form of perjury. Ms. Melican never talked with me in person or by telephone about her second Motion for Protective Order.

She never talked with me by phone or in person about when I would provide a Memorandum of Opposition to her second Motion for Protective Order that she filed with the Court on August 16, 2016.

Conclusion

     There is sufficient evidence for the Board of Overseers to investigate Ms. Melican’s actions as dishonest and prejudicial to the administration of Justice. Her actions are perjurious and designed to give her an unfair and unlawful advantage.

     Ms. Melican is a former judge and presently a lawyer and she knows Opposition Memos get lost in the judicial process unless they accompany the associated Motions. Court Rule 9A was designed to prevent this unfair advantage.

     There is evidence that Ms. Melican intentionally attempted to gain this unfair and unlawful advantage of having the presiding judge see her Motion without seeing the Opposition Motion of the pro se Defendant.

   I respectfully ask that Ms. Melican be investigated for this misconduct.

Respectfully submitted,

Gordon T. Davis                                                                                                         508                                                                                            Stan

Cc: Margaret M. Melican, Esq.