COMMENTARY FROM "OTHERS" ABOUT JUDGE PETER C. DIGANGI


(Copied and Pasted from the Article, "Lynched by Court Order," which can be accessed online from a "search" of the title.)

Judge Stevens, unwilling to acknowledge the lack of jurisdiction issue, but apparently tired of the case which he dubbed the “tar baby,” in November 2003, quite suddenly dumped the four bulging files overflowing with papers pertaining to the “Chalupowski matter” into the willing and hefty arms of Judge Peter C. DiGangi, a personal friend and political protégé of Congressman John F. Tierney.

In 2005, Congressman Tierney, a Democrat representing the 6th District of Massachusetts, nominated Judge DiGangi for the Angels in Adoption Award (presented during a Washington, D.C. gala dinner attended by President Bush) for Judge DiGangi’s “outstanding contribution to the welfare of children in the United States foster care system and orphans around the world.”

While it is not entirely clear exactly what Judge DiGangi did for the “orphans around the world,” a not-so-angelic picture of Judge DiGangi’s stout persona emerges from the pages of the book written by Kevin Thompson, a Massachusetts father lynched financially and emotionally in the process of a child-custody case handled by Judge DiGangi.

In his 300-page treatise “Exposing the Corruption of the Massachusetts Family Courts,” Thompson describes Judge DiGangi as “a dangerous combination of arrogance, ignorance and incompetence,” “a bully”, and “a disgrace to our system of justice.”

Upon learning about Thompson’s publication, Judge DiGangi promptly issued an order banning the distribution of the book. The audacious, though illegal, move was quite in line with the reputation of Judge DiGangi, who in the lingo of the local legal community is endearingly called “the Terminator.”

The nickname duly earned because of Judge DiGangi’s tendency to swiftly terminate (with not much regard for the law or the rules of the court) lingering probate court cases. Upon such terminations, large sums of money flow from the unsuspecting litigants (usually numb from pain and confusion) into the hands of ever-so-grateful attorneys, for both sides, of course. After all, “with the Bench cozied up with the Bar, the lawyers can’t lose.”

In the spirit of this principle, upon his arrival into the case, Judge DiGangi was going to make sure that the lawyers, who so laboriously had been concocting the “complicated” Chalupowski litigation, would not lose their opportunity to cash in on their efforts.

Therefore, the scheme flourished for a while under the watchful eye of Judge DiGangi, who quickly ascertained that in November 2003, the stunt was not quite ready for termination. At this point of the game, it was not entirely clear exactly how much money was available for the heist and later distribution.

By May 2004, the time must have seemed ripe for the termination of the “tar baby” Chalupowski litigation. So, on May 24, 2004, Judge DiGangi (arrogantly oblivious to the fact that he lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matters pending on appeal) actually held a “trial” on the three cases dismissed in December 2001, and in May 2004, still pending before the Appeals Court, therefore outside of jurisdiction of the Probate Court.

When, before the May 2004 “trial,” Chester made repeated attempts to bring to the court’s attention the issue of lack of jurisdiction, as well as the fact that nothing was stolen from either of the trusts, the irritated schemers quickly found a way to put him in his place by putting him in the Middleton prison for three days on an arrest warrant procured in a premeditated civil contempt action. After spending the weekend of May 14, 2004, in jail, Chester (brought to the Salem Probate Court handcuffed and shackled) was released on Monday morning, but not before his wife wrote a check for $1,500 to the “Judge of Probate Court,” which was later personally cashed by Judge John C. Stevens, III.

[NOTE: As it pertains to the article excerpt pasted above, I encourage visitors to this site to read the full article, which describes a conspiracy among several lawyers and judges to defraud a family out of its life savings. The full article not only references Digangi, but it references several other judges who I have identified as corrupt on this website (including Essex Superior Court Judge David A. Lowy, Essex Superior Court Judge Diane M. Kottmyer, Massachusetts Appeals Court Judge Andre A. Gelinas, Massachusetts Appeals Court Judge Joseph A. Trainor, U.S. Appeals Court Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Michael Boudin, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Norman H. Stahl, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Kermit V. Lipez, and U.S. Appeals Court Judge Jeffrey R. Howard.) 


Dear Kevin,

I want to send you my moral support and encouragement in your fight to publish your experiences in the Family Court system and specifically with your experience in Judge DiGangi's courtroom.

I have a brother who also was brutalized by DiGangi.  He appealed DiGangi's Divorce Decree and WON the appeal, only to have the case remanded back to DiGangi.  DiGangi then re-wrote the decree in order to penalize my brother for having appealed, costing my brother another $200,000 plus atty fees.  He also was/is the victim of Parental Alienation, which the MA family courts do not recognize in any way. 

Judge DiGangi is out of control, as is the Family Court system.  There are no juries to hear the cases, the judicial oversight commission is spineless and there is an attitude of MA Family Court judges that they are above all others.  If we don't put a limit on judicial terms, there is going to be a revolt of the people and irreparable harm done to children in this state.  In my opinion, there is no expectation of justice in the family courts of MA.

I am appalled and have nightmares about ever being involved in the MA court system.  We must shed a public light on the judicial abuses in our family courts.  Can you get Joe Bergantino or 20/20 to highlight your case?

[Name Withheld]

....................................................................................................................

My name is Ernest Wright.  Everything Mr Thompson is saying about this judge is true and accurate. He did the same things in my divorce case regarding my now 5yo son.  He deliberately and blatantly omitted anything I had as proof. He lied, was viciously inappropriate, switched courtrooms if any other people were there so that my case wouldn't be heard by anyone, all with the chuckling assistance of the court personnel in Middlesex.  He even brought up information that he only could have obtained ex parte throughout my case.  His objectives were to not let any testimony in regarding my ex, protect his illegal associations and activities in my case, and permanently close the door on all of this at the expense of my son's life. So, if in the future anything happens to my boy because of his lawlessness and criminal activities, he and his cohorts are personally, criminally and ethically responsible. During the hearing for my divorce/custody case when Judge Digangi was informed of my ex's lifelong untreated polysubstance abuse he said in open court "so what" and disregarded it. I filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Judicial Conduct Commission and they did nothing.  On appeal it was Boudin, Lipez, and Lippet. They affirmed that my appeal was frivolous.

There should be monitors in every court where he appears henceforth. This is a dangerous man who is playing with children's lives on a daily basis. A thorough review of every case he has been involved in is in order. He even allowed the probation officers Terry Toundry and his wife to alternate being the probation people in my case in Cambridge and Marlborough.

All of this after he had exhausted my money and I was functioning pro se. My file was missing papers and phantom documents were in there. This judge sent me to jail for being late with a $260 child support payment to my millionaire ex wife and never made her produce a single document regarding her income. Which was basically the crux of this collusion. The sanctity of our son's existence was meaningless. He seemed especially appalled at my presence.

I though it might have been only racially motivated because I'm Black and my ex is white, but then I realized it was about money and collusion. Not about my son, and only exacerbated by my skin color. My case is Docket 2001D0620DV1 in the Cambridge Probate Court in Massachusetts. Filed in March of 2001. Judge Digangi was the presiding justice in my case also. He currently lives in Danvers, Massachusetts.

First, let me pay homage to Mr Thompson for exposing the corruption of Judge Peter C. Digangi and the Massachusetts Probate Court. I want to thank him publicly and personally. It was unbelievable when I read an excerpt from this book. It was as if I was hearing my own story. Hopefully this will create a media firestorm and bring federal and national entities to Massachusetts to fully expose this Judge and the others who are a part of this crime syndicate. By the time this is unraveled its going to make the Catholic Church collusion seem like a spanking in terms of how many children's lives this judge and his cohorts have destroyed. My son is paying with his life for the abuses of criminals like Digangi. My son will be six years old at the beginning of next year so he's already endured five years of living with a junkie mother at the hands of Digangi and other's doings.

........................................................................................................................

I recently found out there was another case in federal court on appeal against Judge Digangi.  Two of the same judges in my federal case also affirmed the lower court judgment against this man and nothing happened. They were Federal judges Lynch and Lippet. 

What I believe is happening here is a sort of silent coverup.  The decision in that case was like in mine, "unpublished" but you can google it if you put in Digangi's name and federal court. These people are under the assumption that they are untouchable because of the extreme magnitude of their colluders, disciples, and the fear that they believe they can generate by threatening jail and court-induced poverty against men who go to battle on behalf of their children in divorce/custody cases.

In Massachusetts I think we have a climate in the courts where some judges are acting out their biases, and are pandering to select groups goals and social movements to stay alive. Their belief is that they can do this because nothing will happen to them.

These probate judges are protected like others have been in criminal enterprises. It is impossible to have this level of sustained corruption without it being sanctioned at the top.  The federal judge's here keep a lid on it for there minions like Digangi.  Corruption is a standard part of them doing business in these cases.  We are in the flux of women's rights at the expense of children.  In our state it is profound.

Men's rights are not a big issue here and children's rights are less.  Children and fathers are secondary to women and mothers. They are mistaken though, and are gambling that they can sustain this injustice indefinitely. They are not cognizant that although it is cloaked, it is transparent and we can see them. Its the old headset that, so what, you can see it, but you can't do anything about it.

The troubling part of all this is that the media will not address father's rights. People in everyday life are afraid to comment on any negativity regarding the behavior of women if it is questionable for fear of being labeled a misogynist.  

The child is a minor consideration in the heads of these folks. Margaret Marshall and her people have made that very clear to these flunkie judges.

.................................................................................................................

Judge DiGangi's appears to have little knowledge of the rules of civil procedure or of the rules of evidence. He is woefully unconcerned about basic constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, rights of confrontation and elementary fairness. He permits ex-parte communications; he makes decisions that are contrary to the very documents and pleadings before him, fails to conduct evidentiary hearings where required, and issues boilerplate decisions without written findings or explanations.He ignores the rights of litigants and engages in result-oriented adjudication. I am appalled at the alternate universe over which he presides.

...................................................................................................................

The epitome of what a judge should never be. Schadenfreude aptly describes this judge. Appointed as Circuit Justice of the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court in 2001. As an attorney DiGangi practiced family law in Salem, Massachusetts. He also previously served as an assistant district attorney in Brooklyn, New York. Judge DiGiangi graduated from the New England School of Law.

Partakes in cronyism with his past lawyer friends and associates that appear before him in probate cases and does not disclose his past involvement (when he was an attorney practicing in Salem, MA) with said counsel that appear before him as a judge. Is poorly received by probation and the court clerks.

In a simple marital dispute over Christmas 2006 he removed the children from both parents and placed them in foster care as a punitive measure to the parents; sentenced a husband to jail time for not paying alimony while he was hospitalized in-patient for prostate cancer, ignores the guardian ad litem and probation department if the recommendations do not match with his pre-conceived opinion, and the list goes on and on. See also: Chalupowski v. Peter C. Digangi, U.S Court of Appeals, 1st. Cir, No. 05-1516 (2005); Question of a RICO filing before Judge Young in Federal Court.

Judge DiGangi was not selected for the First Justice position upon Judge Stevens’ retirement and was recently denied a permanent assignment in Essex County after investigation and review by the Governor’s Council. The Supreme Judicial Court pursuant to M.G.L. c. 211, section 3 in the Supreme Judicial Court’s exercise of its power of general superintendence should move for his removal as a judge or via a writ of mandamus.

Limited inquiry on this matter shows Judge DiGangi on information and belief in a period of three years on the bench has mustered 31 full appeals, is listed on Massachusetts Judicial Watch, has had multiple complaints before the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) , and was being investigated by same, beyond the 21 vetting period.

..................................................................................................................

I am an attorney who has appeared before Judge Peter DiGangi a number of times and will probably have to do so again. So I don't dare get too specific. However, he is not only incompetent, but also utterly corrupt. He has protection from one of the State's Congressmen, and he feels that he is untouchable. He need not listen to what counsel before him says, and he need not read the pleadings. He knows that he can do whatever he pleases, and he does.

....................................................................................................................

Having appeared before this "judge," I often rub my eyes in wonder. Is he a real judge, or simply an imposter in a black robe? He is not only totally ignorant of the law, but he glories in that ignorance. He knows only one thing (although in Massachusetts that is an important thing to know): rule for the woman, no matter how much you have to twist the law, the facts, and the procedure to do it. Since DiGangi is still on the bench after many complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commission, one must assume that he has heavy political protection.

.....................................................................................................................

An extremely poor judge, lacking in legal skill and reasoning, with a bias against men and toward females; will make snap decisons without reading any of the legal pleadings or following the law or civil procedure. Is lazy, typified by his lack of evaluative thought process and reading the legal documents both in actual practice and reputation. Forms a decison on a given case at the outset and will ignore or slant his rulings to achieve his desired goal. Is rude, vindictive and abusive to the litigants and their counsel and is authorative and patronizing. Panders to larger lawfirms and espouses to act under the guise of the children's best interest, but will ignore same at every opportunity. At best he can pontificate on small divorce cases, but will really mess up a larger divorce action that goes though to trial. Has multiple complaint before the CJC and a multitude of appeals past and pending. The CJC should review his past cases and seek his removal from the bench. To elevate him to the bench was a major error.

..................................................................................................................

Shows a clear bias towards women in Family Court, makes illogical, irrational decisions and forces fathers to pay for guardian ad litem that he has ordered even though the law clearly states that the Common-Wealth of MA is to pay when the court orders an evaluation.

.....................................................................................................................


JUDGE PETER C. DIGANGI
The criminal confronts us with the perplexity of radical evil, but only the hypocrite is rotten to the core.
                                                               - Hannah Arendt
I first met Judge Peter C. Digangi at a February 25, 2004 hearing on my motion to correct the child support amount so that it would comply with the state guidelines.  The Mother and I were scheduled to meet before Judge Mary McCauley Manzi, who made us sit in her courtroom all day before transferring the case over to Digangi in the late afternoon.

Within minutes of meeting me for the first time, Digangi expressed his gender-biased opinion that fathers are lesser parents than mothers with no chance of gaining 50/50 joint physical custody in his courtroom.  His court-recorded comment was:

Can we look at this case, getting the issue of joint physical custody off the table
because, quite frankly, sir, no judge is probably going to entertain that or they'll hear
your argument but I don't think you're going to get very far with it... A young child
needs to be with the nurturance of his mother if there is going to be a schism between
two parents.

The transcripts confirm that Digangi wasted significantly more time at this hearing attempting to discourage me from pursuing joint physical custody than he did addressing my motion. Below are just some of his "off topic" unsolicited comments expressed at this hearing, followed by my responses.

(1) Now, when you tell me you want joint physical custody and if she stands there and
says, "I don't want joint physical custody"...absent you and her agreeing...and quite
frankly with the pleadings in this case I doubt that I would even allow it even if you
both came to me and said I want joint physical custody.

Digangi "doubts" that he would "allow" joint physical custody even if we "both" came to
him with that request(?!).  Again, I was in court on this day to correct the child support
order.  That was "the pleading in the case". No one was sorrier than me that the Mother
committed perjury on her Financial Statements, but those were the facts and I was in
court to communicate the facts of the case so that the support amount could be
corrected.

This comment also conveys that the Mother was in a favored position to influence
Digangi since her wishes carried more weight than mine.  Sole custody is handed to the
Mother with or without me agreeing to it, but my less intrusive compromise of joint
physical custody requires that the Mother be in agreement.

(2) It's going to be very hard for a court to justify taking that child away from her and
giving the child to you. 

Contrary to Digangi's thinking, joint physical custody does not take the child from either
parent, but balances the child's relationship with both parents.  It is only sole custody that
actually takes the child from one of the parents. 

(3) It appears to me with the hostility that I see in ten seconds in this case... (that) this is
not going to be a case that smacks that there should be joint physical custody in this
case and I haven't even heard from her yet.

Contrary to this reality-defying claim, Digangi did not see ANY "hostility" at this hearing.
He also did not examine any evidence or hear any testimony specific to my argument for
joint physical custody.But still, he had the whole case set for trial figured out in ten
seconds. It became clear that in Digangi's courtroom, the more unethical the mother, the
more likely she leaves with sole custody because Digangi will interpret any attempt to
communicate the reality of the situation to the court, no matter how professionally it is
done, as a hostile act against the mother.

(4) The situation is this.  No judge can legally give you joint physical and legal custody of
the child unless literally they think both of you can get along in harmony with each
other.

There is no such state or federal law that makes it illegal to award joint custody to parents
who do not get along.  It takes two to get along.  Judges who express such a biased,
ignorant interpretation of the law send the message to mothers that if they want sole
custody of their child, all they need to do is refuse to get along with their child's father. 
Joint physical custody actually reduces conflict because it provides each parent with a
more isolated relationship with their child independent of the whims and malice of the
other parent.

(5) ...hearing the vituperousness that you're approaching this case right now, there's no
way that a judge is going to say you should have joint physical custody of this child. 
I'm sorry, but that's what the law is.

Again, Digangi LIES about what the law is AND about my demeanor in his courtroom to
discourage me from pursuing joint physical custody.  To make the baseless claim that my
approach at this hearing was "vituperous" indicates that this comment was not coming
from what Digangi was witnessing before him, but from what Manzi had told him behind
closed doors, specifically, that I had reported her to the Commission on Judicial
Conduct.

(6) If you can't get along together and the Court finds that either one of you are at fault,
somebody might lose total custody of this child.

If the parents cannot get along, even when it is the mother who is completely at fault, it is
the father who might lose total custody of the child.  The mother is never at fault in
Digangi's courtroom because he will not hear testimony or evidence that is critical of her.

(7) A two-year old child, unless mom, there's really something wrong with her, in all
likelihood will probably maintain physical custody of a two-year old child.

This biased mindset completely contradicts the Massachusetts Constitution, the United
States Constitution, and Digangi's own empty claim that the law looks to both parents as
being equal.

(8) ...so your argument saying that the laws are biased against guys for certain reasons, I
can't help you there because I'm not changing the law.

I did not say that the laws are biased against guys.  In fact, I do not want the law to
change because the law protects each citizen's rights to due process and equal protection,
it defines the right to parent one's child as a fundamental, inalienable right, and it forbids
the creation of second-class citizens.  It is Digangi's creative interpretations of the law that
are biased and what need to change.

...........................................................................................................................................

This is the kind of ignorant commentary that fathers have to endure non-stop in family court.  If the judge succeeds at convincing the father to throw in the towel, then the courts report the case as one where the father did not "actively pursue" custody to exclude him from the skewed studies conducted by the Massachusetts court system itself to conceal the outrageous treatment of fathers in family court.

When I proved at this "child support modification" hearing that the Mother had lied on her financial statements, Digangi ignored this crime and responded with the "off topic" comment:

If she's cheated on her taxes, if she's overstated the cost of her  daycare... that really
doesn't get into the idea as to who's the best  parent for the child.

It should be noted that Digangi played the same game of semantics with me at this hearing that Manzi played at my first hearing before her when I used the word "battle" in her courtroom.  Digangi interrupted me during my opening statement to reprimand me for referring to my son as "my" son, instead of "our" son.  As he sarcastically put it:

Did you create this child all by yourself or is it both your child?...  Please refer to your
child appropriately, okay?  It's not just yours.   We're not talking about a refrigerator,
alright?

Aside from the fact that Digangi's use of the word "it" is the only word uttered that would "objectify" my son, not the pronoun "my"; this diatribe was spewed for no other reason but to bully me and put me in my place in his courtroom.

It should also be noted that the child support order, which is what Digangi was supposed to be ruling on, was not corrected to comply with the state guidelines on this day.

The child custody trial was scheduled to be heard by Manzi on June 3-4, 2004.  But that trial was shortened from two days to one and transferred to Digangi, who I contend was assigned to the trial to retaliate against me for reporting Manzi to the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
 
When I learned that Digangi would be the trial judge, I prepared for his kangaroo court.  I knew that he would railroad me at the trial, I knew that he would try to instigate a reaction from me, and I knew that he would distort the truth to vilify me so that he could justify his predetermined ruling.

Therefore, I was determined to conduct myself in a manner that would be beyond reproach and let Digangi shoot himself in the foot with slanderous allegations about me that he would not be able to justify later to the appeals court with either the documented evidence or the recorded transcripts.

If I had so much as rolled my eyes or expressed even a hint of frustration, then my strategy to expose him as a fraud would have failed.  I needed to provide absolutely nothing that he could reference to verify the false allegations and baseless conclusions that I knew would come from him later.

I contend that I did just that and have the hearings tapes and transcripts to prove it.

On June 4, 2004, after a one-day trial that denied to me my due process rights to be heard, to present evidence and witnesses favorable to my case, to confront witnesses against me, and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; Digangi rewarded the Mother with sole legal and physical custody for lying under oath, for committing perjury in legal documents, for conspiring with co-workers and her mother to fabricate false allegations against me, and for disclosing her evidence exactly one week prior to the trial, four months after discovery was ordered to be complete.

To prevent me from discrediting the Mother and proving that I am overwhelmingly the fitter and more credible parent, Digangi precluded me from presenting every one of the 55 exhibits that I had timely pre-marked for the trial.

Digangi accomplished this by repeatedly sustaining the Mother's merit-less objections and only allowing me to argue my case on the stand as my own witness without access to my notes and exhibits.

Digangi also precluded me from questioning the court officer, Officer Scott Prater, who had agreed to testify to the FACT that the Mother had LIED to the DSS with her claim that I had been reprimanded for inappropriate and abusive actions in court and that the court was putting extra officials in the courtroom due to my behavior.

When I objected to these due process violation and pointed out that the Mother's attorney did not face such restrictions, Digangi responded:

You're acting as your own counsel. You put yourself in this predicament.

A DSS worker, who had never met me prior to the trial, was called to the stand to testify as a witness for the Mother to what the Mother's "hand-picked" accomplices had communicated to her.

When I objected to this "hearsay" witness and attempted to expose the lies contained in her DSS report, which would have rendered the report worthless before an honorable court, Digangi preserved the report's credibility and the credibility of this DSS "witness" by directing me to move on with the claim:

The purpose of this investigation by this witness was not to investigate  you, sir, in any
way.  Bear that in mind.

Digangi and a three-judge panel of the appeals court did not "bear that in mind" since they both referenced this report, made up entirely of legally inadmissible hearsay, to justify their rulings.

This hearsay "accommodation" also did not go both ways.  My single witness and I were cut off numerous times at the instant we attempted to testify to anything communicated to us by someone else (i.e. the police, the Mother’s brother, the court officer).

I was not able to confront the Mother's false witnesses against me because the three individuals who were quoted by the DSS investigator while on the stand were not in the courtroom.

I did not have the opportunity to subpoena these "witnesses against me" because, as stated earlier, the Mother did not submit her evidence or witness list until a week before the trial.

To conceal his misconduct, Digangi impounded the case without notifying the parties; without a request to impound from either party; and without a written statement of reasons, as required by law, to impound any case that is presumptively open to the public.  See the "Guidelines on the Public's Right of Access to Judicial Proceedings and Records".

To conceal his misconduct at the appeals court level, Digangi slandered me, fabricated evidence to discredit me, and plagiarized most of the Mother's fraudulent findings as his own to produce his "findings of fact" for the appeal of the case.

All that Digangi required as proof was that the Mother and her attorney were alleging it.
 
Consequently, the outrageous LIES that were passed on to the appeals court as "findings" to support his ruling included the claims that I am narcissistic, that I idealize myself, that my word is not credible, that I created an intolerable work environment for the Mother, that I refused to attend my son's doctor's appointments, and that I frequently used profanity and acted inappropriately in my son's presence.

Digangi was also the original judge to ban my book.
 
Aware of the advantage that she had in Digangi’s court, the Mother’s attorney went "judge shopping" for Digangi in Salem to hear her March 2, 2006 ex parte motions to ban my book rather than bring the matter to Lawrence where all previous hearings had taken place.

At this hearing, Digangi allowed the Mother’s attorney to "hand-write" her improperly-filed motions as a complaint so that he could temporarily ban a book that he never reviewed.

Digangi allowed the Mother's motion(s) in defiance of the following facts:

(1)The Mother's attorney showed up in court with "motions" not the "complaint"
required by law to properly open up a new case.

(2)There was a clear conflict of interest for Digangi to rule on a book in which his
misconduct and specific crimes against me are exposed.

(3)There was no urgency to rule on the book without my presence in the courtroom.

(4)And any restraints on speech, no matter how temporary, without specific written
findings, are a violation of the First Amendment.

At approximately 8 PM that night, I was served with two "orders" on legal size paper notifying me that I was temporarily restrained from distributing my book and informing me that a hearing had been scheduled on the matter for March 10, 2006.

These were the only two documents served on me and they did not include either a time or place for the hearing.  I had to call the court to find out.

A handwritten "Complaint in Equity" is now contained in the case file, time stamped and listed in the docket record as filed on March 2, 2006.
 
The first time that I ever saw this document was on June 16, 2006, six weeks after the ex parte hearing to ban my book, when I went to the Salem courthouse to review my file.

At the March 10, 2006 hearing before Digangi, the Mother's attorney, Debra Dow, approached me in the courtroom to hand me the Mother's ex parte motion to impound and the Mother's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order - both dated March 2, 2006.

Not even on this date, eight days after a complaint was allegedly filed with the court, did I receive such a document.

It is for this reason that I believe that the "complaint"  was fraudulently filed after the fact.  If Attorney Dow had improperly filed motions instead of a complaint on March 2, 2006, which required her to write up a complaint while in the courthouse to get her case heard, I would think that such an event would be memorable enough for Attorney Dow to remember to serve me with a copy of that handwritten complaint as required by law.

At this hearing, Digangi informed the parties that he did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case and then immediately defied that statement by extending his temporary "book ban" to March 22, 2006, the date scheduled for the matter to be heard by Manzi.

In June of 2006, Digangi somehow convinced First Justice Mary Anne Sahagian to transfer the  "book ban" case back to him from Manzi, who was taking heat in the media and with the ACLU for banning a book that was not even submitted into evidence by the moving party.

My written request to First Justice Sahagian to explain why she reassigned the case to the only judge in the state with a greater conflict of interest than Judge Manzi was ignored.

Barring perjury from court personnel, witnesses also exist who can confirm the disturbing fact that Digangi was going through my case file  at least two weeks prior to the time that the "book ban" case was reassigned to him.

On June 29, 2006, a day after the reassignment, Digangi scheduled a pretrial conference on the matter for October 10, 2006 - more than seven months from the day that he originally banned my book.

Digangi's postponement of the matter was a criminal defiance of my constitutional rights.  There is particular urgency where prior restraints of speech are concerned because "any First Amendment infringement that occurs with each passing day is irreparable..." Nebraska Press II, 423 U.S. at 1328.

For clarification, the book was officially "banned" at the time that Digangi scheduled the October 10, 2006 pretrial conference.

Opposing counsel filed for a continuance less than a week before the pretrial  conference, which Digangi granted over my objections, postponing the matter for six more months to April 10, 2007.

Since Digangi had failed to respond to my previous motions for his recusal (filed on March 10, 2006 and September 29, 2006); I filed and scheduled for hearing a third motion to recuse on December 19, 2006.

In defiance of the fact that Digangi is listed as a defendant in a lawsuit that I filed in federal court, is the subject of two complaints to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, is called "a dangerous combination of arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence" in my book; and is required to recuse himself from any case where there exists an appearance that he cannot be impartial, Digangi immediately denied this motion after hearing on December 29, 2006.
 
This motion was denied so that he could continue to play games with me and add to my costs.

At the April 10, 2007 pretrial conference, Digangi "misplaced" four pages of my five-page motion to dismiss the book ban case, which was hand-delivered to the courthouse as an intact, five-page document on March 9, 2007, so that he could give the Mother, who was now representing herself pro se, additional time to file an opposition to my motion.

The Mother submitted her opposition to my motion to dismiss on April 19, 2007, a full month after the deadline for a response, which Digangi used to deny my motion.

After waiting three months following the pretrial conference for Digangi to schedule a trial on the matter, the Mother requested a trial assignment herself on July 11, 2007.

Digangi ignored the Mother's request for a one-hour trial and instead scheduled another pretrial conference for September 12, 2007, the third scheduled pretrial conference since the Mother's complaint was brought into Digangi's courtroom 17 months earlier.

On August 7, 2007, I filed an "assented to" motion to cancel this baseless pretrial conference and schedule the Mother-requested trial on the matter.  I wrote in the motion my contention that Digangi had scheduled this baseless pretrial conference to further retaliate against me and make this case as costly and time-consuming as possible.

Digangi not only denied this motion, but postponed the date for the pretrial conference to November 9, 2007, two more months into the future and 19 months from the date that the Mother's complaint was filed.

This was the straw that broke the camel's back.  Since my book was an issue that was being addressed in federal court as part of my lawsuit against five state court judges, including Digangi, and since any ruling from Digangi would be illegal and therefore null and void, I was able to convince the Mother to dismiss the case before Digangi, provided that I make the book unavailable to the public until the matter could be heard and ruled on in federal court.

It should be noted that everything communicated above was conveyed in two complaints to the criminally-negligent Commission on Judicial Conduct, which dismissed both complaints with the claim that no judicial misconduct had occurred.