As I've mentioned before, when I was forcibly removed and restrained from my home I was also deprived of several thousand dollars worth of my property. There's a laundry list of things that Cindy either stashed and claimed to not know where they were, or decided and declared that she owned because, well, she wanted to. So, after pestering my lawyer to do something about it a few times and not getting any results, I filed a small claims suit against her in Wrentham District Court. I'll also admit that part of my motivation was her threat to sue me in the very insane email she'd left on my laptop when I finally got it back from her. There was definitely an "Oh, yeah? How do like that?" aspect of my motivation. But that aside, she stole a lot of my stuff and I wanted it back. A couple of things stand out like the leather jacket that was the last Christmas gift I'd ever get from my daughter Alannah. There was also an office tape recorder that had a tape in it of a meeting on writing a proposal for an important research project involving the disease that killed Alannah, and I was tasked with writing that proposal. (I've been a very active patient advocate since shortly after Alannah's death.) I needed that tape for review to do a competent job of it. Cindy knew exactly what that was and how important it was to me and she disappeared it before I could come back to get my things. I asked her where it was when I was there and she just played stupid, so I was feeling the need to push back on her malice. Another part of my motivation was that the best way to trap a liar is to get them talking because they're bound to screw up, which she did repeatedly. Little did I know that not a soul in that courthouse gives a tinker's damn about perjury. At any rate, before we ever made it to court, something pretty funny happened. This arrived via Fed-Ex: (click to enlarge)
After reading this, I couldn't get to a phone fast enough. I'd get paid to go spend a couple of days in So Cal (where I lived for 14 years and have lots of friends and family), get the travel paid for, get paid for my stuff and I'd get to watch Judge Judy rip my favorite felon a new one for all the world to see. So, I called the producer and said "Not just yes, HELL YES!!!" and she told me she'd contact Cindy and ask her to agree. Of course, Cindy is a Judge Judy fan and knows that she has a finely tuned bullshit detector and she's not very nice when it red-lines, so needless to say she wasn't interested in appearing before her on national TV. Man, that would have been fun! And I wish I could have seen the look on her face when she opened a similar letter. But Judge Judy just wasn't going to happen. So instead, we wound up in Wrentham, appearing before magistrate A. Ross Pini (who is also notorious for being a pig.)
A recording of the hearing can be found here. There are actually two hearings here, but the first is where the real fun is. This whole thing is long, clocking in at about 1:12 and the audio is not great. If you're game to listen to the whole thing, more power to you. But there's something that's definitely worth listening to at about the 11 minute mark. Before that, Pini gives a stern lecture about how if he finds anyone perjuring themselves, he'll have them prosecuted. Then there's some back and forth including Cindy presenting a letter she got from the Foxboro police indicating that I had said at the time I gotten everything I wanted out of the house. And then, Pini tries to get us to settle it amongst ourselves and sends us out of the courtroom to do so. That's where you'll pick up at the 11 minute mark. You'll first hear Pini complaining "What am I gonna play Judge Wapner? Who gets the orange squeezer?" Given that his fat ass was sitting on the bench of a small claims court, I think the answer should be yes, you should play Judge Wapner, or at least try to be a pale imitation. Then, you can hear the court clerk saying the following to Pini. Remember that Cindy and I are out of the room.
Clerk: Do you want to know what happened with it? I think he knows...(unintelligble)...Foxboro Police Department, she didn't want to have to carry it anymore, and she was gonna be OK, you don't need to put storage and she got rid of it. So that's why he made the comment "I want everything back." 'cause he knows she doesn't have it. Oh, shh, they're back.
Now, how I would know that is a mystery to me, but the important thing is that we have a court employee arguing one side of a case to the guy deciding it in the absence of the parties to the case. Then, if you keep listening, you'll hear Cindy testifying, under oath, that she has no idea where most of my stuff is, a completely different story than what she had told the clerk who was arguing on her behalf. For instance, the bed I bought was on my list, as well as the sheet sets I bought for it. Now, she admitted having the bed, but claimed to have no knowledge of where the sheets were. Call me crazy, but if I had to guess, I'd say one of them was on the bed and she'd probably been sleeping on them the night before coming into court and lying about them. There are some other great nuggets in there, like the power tools I'd supposedly sold her for beer money or something and even Pini told her that was ridiculous. But instead of doing his job, ruling in my favor and having her perjury prosecuted, he granted her a continuance she didn't ask for so she could file the countersuit he told her she should file. Bias? Advocating from the bench? Canon of Judicial Ethics? Impartial administration of justice? Who cares? Lookit! Boobies!
Now, let's read that letter from the Foxboro cops. And, let's have a look at the countersuit she filed. Or, I should say, that the lawyer she hired for Round 2 filed. Both state that I told Scott Hodson I had everything I wanted. The police log also says that. But I did no such thing. On the contrary, I asked him flat out what I was supposed to do about the things she was stealing from me and he told me to take it to court. Let's look back at the Internal Affairs "investigation" report. Page 3, the paragraph numbered 4 of the list of official police investigation findings begins "That Officer Hodson did in fact escort you to your former residence to obtain your personal property and informed you of the correct process to obtain property that was in question." Now why would he have done that if I told him I had everything? Because I told him quite the opposite, that's why. And yet this falsehood made it into the record, and Cindy Whelahan knew it was there when it was put there, which is why she went looking for a letter containing it when I sued her. She and Scott Hodson were conspiring, you see, just as they were when they decided to dummy up the 209A violation charge. It's little wonder Officer Nitwit couldn't remember any of this when he was on the witness stand. But he seemed to remember it when he was talking to Sgt. Eugene Bousquet during the Internal Affairs investigation. Yes, the same Bousquet that wrote the letter for Cindy referencing the lie on the record.
Another thing you'll see in the countersuit is that Cindy paid everything out of her own funds, and I paid nothing of any household expenses. But if you make it through the audio to the second hearing, you'll hear her lawyer admitting that my paycheck was being direct deposited into the checking account she paid the bills out of. And here's a spreadsheet of common expenses that I paid for directly on either credit or debit cards, totaling $3500+ over the month and a half. (I submitted this with the relevant statements into evidence. This does not include anything I paid cash for, as I couldn't document that. And no, I'm not putting my bank statements online.) You'll also see that we supposedly lived together from January 1st until I was dragged out in handcuffs in July and I, being a deadbeat all that time owed her for half of the rent for the year. But if you look at Cindy's original complaint for a restraining order, you'll see in Section H she checked off that The Defendant and Plaintiff: "are not related but live in the same household" and then wrote in next to that "7 wks". Which, it was more like 6 and a half, but that's close enough to the truth. She also testified that we lived together all year in the first hearing. That is perjury, folks. That is a felony.
As it turned out, the second hearing, in front of magistrate Joseph Semensi, ended with him taking the case under advisement and then sending out a no-decision decison later that same day. If the Patriots ever need a punter, they should look that guy up. He knows how to kick it away. Still, filing that suit may have been the best $40 I've ever spent.
No comments:
Post a Comment