At the risk of sounding like a broken record, once again Joseph Leonard Michaud, a state judge in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, has violated Constitutional law, ethical rules, and criminal laws: Rhode Island state law §11-32-3 and federal law 18 U.S. Code § 1503—both of which are felonies.  Michaud has obstructed justice in three separate court systems: trial courts in his home state, bankruptcy court in California, and now federal court in Rhode Island.  Just days ago, a public reprimand was issued against him.  Understand that any form of judicial discipline is exceedingly rare here in Amerika.  This upstanding citizen has also been sued multiple times.  For example, one matter was an action related to wind turbines and another involved union issues.

Up until recently, I had a decent amount of respect for the Rhode Island judiciary—more so than the judiciary in any other state.  Most of the time, corruption was minimal or absent.  Sadly, a case I filed in Rhode Island federal court and its state-court predecessor have turned 180 degrees from prior experiences.

Recent events are as follows:

  1. The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island received my complaint on September 29, 2022.
  2. Judge Mary McElroy reviewed the complaint sometime over the four months the case was pending.
  3. Since the case had plenty of validity, a “case opening notice” issued on January 25, 2023.
  4. That day or the very next day, Joseph Leonard Michaud called the judge and lied to her as he has done repeatedly over the last twenty years in related matters and influenced her to block my access to justice.
  5. After vacating everything shortly after the call, it took Judge McElroy two weeks to cobble together a bogus order, thinly veiled in “law,” to justify her corrupt activities.

There’s no way Judge McElroy would have issued the orders on January 25, 2023, without first giving my case a “mandatory review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).”  It is quite clear from the short court docket what happened.  The reason I know Michaud made the call is because this is his modus operandi.  He has done this numerous times.  He called several of my attorneys, lied, and violated civil and criminal law in the original case against him and his client in order to reverse the legitimate judgment given to me and turn it into a fraudulent judgment for his client; he called the Department of Injustice and lied to them in order to block the bankruptcy court’s discharge of the fraudulent debt he created; and he has done so a third time in an attempt to block justice once again by wrongly preventing the first case I filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island from being heard, which is a violation of my constitutional rights and is precisely one of the reasons for my federal lawsuit in the first place!  See www.stloiyf.com/evidence/letter.htm and www.stloiyf.com/complaint/complaint.htm for just a sampling of the rampant corruption that has plagued my related cases over the last two decades, which includes, to a large extent, the gross misconduct and criminal acts of Michaud.

Furthermore, the evidence is clearly revealed in the docket and through other sources if careful examination is rendered.  Courts do not open cases without careful consideration.  After electronic notice was given about the case being opened, Michaud got email notification of it through PACER, or one of the other several defendants did who then contacted him.  I emailed PACER support and asked if it is possible to receive automated notifications of case openings based on party names.  In an email response of February 16, 2023, I was told it is quite possible.  Their software is set up for such functionality.  Michaud promptly called Judge McElroy to complain that he was being sued for his criminal misconduct and that he didn’t like it and wanted to keep the condominium he stole from my mother and its rental income that he is stealing from me.

Also, the judge would not have waited almost two weeks after vacating all her previous orders to issue her terminating “order” if she had valid reason to do so.  She would have had the reason, vacated the orders, and dismissed the complaint all at the same time.  The reason it took so long is that she had to contrive a reason for dismissal after receiving the call, and she manipulated events and the court record in order to stop marshals from serving papers so that the court’s precious funds would not be wasted on true justice.  Reading the “order” of February 7, 2023, it is abundantly obvious that Judge McElroy—or whoever wrote it and gave it to her for rubber stamping—was grasping at straws to dismiss the case.

Judge McElroy contends that my complaint, “even taking its allegations as true, does not state a plausible claim for relief and should be dismissed.”  A statement such as this is so incredibly ridiculous.  Count eight, which she omits in her order, is a straightforward count for which evidence is uncomplicated and readily available, is unquestionably a “plausible claim,” is most certainly a federal question, is 100 percent true, and is easily provable. 

Judge McElroy says, “So that the plaintiff understands why the [c]ourt is denying him the ability to proceed.....”  Make no mistake.  I definitely understand why, and the reason was given in item 4 above.  In footnote 2, she points to immunity, and although she states that “absolute immunity of one of the defendants, a state court judge” prevents suit against him or her, this is incorrect.  It prevents monetary relief.  Judges are not absolutely immune from declaratory or injunctive relief, which is exactly the relief I am seeking from one particular defendant who is a judge.  Michaud, also a judge now, as repulsive as that is, committed the bulk of his misconduct, crimes, and injuries to me before he was appointed to the bench, but even if he committed any during his tenure as judge, the 2-prong requirement for immunity avails him to liability in the form of damages. 

Furthermore, regarding a recent case, judges are not immune from damages either, as well they shouldn’t be for egregious acts.  The beloved Stump v. Sparkman was blown out of the water with a ruling made last year that slapped the criminal judges involved in the “kids for cash” scandal with $206 million in damages.  Justice finally seems to be taking hold, at least in small steps, across the nation.  Lastly, Judge McElroy says that “one of the defendants” is a state court judge (strong emphasis added).  Actually, two defendants are state court judges.  How would she possibly know that one is but not know that another is also?  Why would one stick out to her more than the other wherein she would only allude to that particular defendant?  A single phone conversation can be quite persuasive.

In her bogus ruling, Judge McElroy states that the court “previously granted both motions in error, on January 25, 2023.  On the following day, those actions were vacated, leaving the two motions pending.”  Judge McElroy did not make any “error.”  It is not like this was her first or second week on the job.  She has been a district judge for more than three years and has an extensive background in law.  She has tried to cover her tracks and “engineer” the court record.....the same way the state courts did in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.....the same way the state courts did in Rhode Island.....and the same way the federal courts did and are still doing in California.  In a nutshell, once the world's largest crime syndicate found out who I am and who one of the defendants is, it basically said, “Hey, we can’t have this case continue in this direction; we need to change its course.”  It’s sickening to say the least.

Norma Oliver has absolutely nothing to do with the complaint and is not named as a defendant in it.  She is not the one who is stealing the rent monies from me as Judge McElroy implies.  Therefore, the “reasons” she gives twist and distort reality.  As manager of the property I had been collecting rents for years.  If what she claims is correct, that I gave the property away, which it is, then she is making my case for me because of her zeal to steer it in the direction of her friends.  Why have the defendants stolen the property through a fraudulent sale to satisfy a fraudulent debt they created and attributed to me, not Norma Oliver, who also has never had any real financial obligation to any of the defendants whatsoever?  This question is, in fact, the gravamen of multiple counts in my complaint.

In footnote 3, the judge mentions some of the factors that lead to her “$3 [m]illion plus” figure, but uses cursory wording of “other compensatory damages” and conveniently leaves out the $286,727.92 in interest and penalties I will incur with the IRS.  This sum in itself easily eclipses the $75,000 diversity requirement.  I would not have incurred such costs if not for the criminal actions of the defendants.

Next, Judge McElroy states, “there is no constitutional right to a virtual hearing.”  Nowhere in my complaint do I claim there is.  There is also no constitutional right for white people to sit in the front of the bus, with black people being forced to sit in the back, but Rosa Parks set that nonsense straight.  What I do say is that denying certain litigants such a hearing while allowing it to others is “discrimination against a class, i.e., the class of pro se litigants”—a clear constitutional violation of equal protection.  Part 2 of this series.