JUDGE DIANE M. KOTTMYER
PRECEDENT, n. In law, a previous decision, rule or practice which, in the absence of a definite statute, has whatever force and authority a judge may choose to give it, thereby greatly simplifying his task of doing as he pleases.
— Ambrose BierceEssex Superior Court Judge Diane M. Kottmyer was the first judge to convince me that the corruption and incompetence that permeates family court extends as well to superior court, where judges have the absolute power to obstruct justice by dismissing cases before they can succeed on their merits before a jury.
Kottmyer was the corrupt and/or incompetent judge who heard my "workplace harassment/character defamation" lawsuit against my union president, Diane Dandreta. After waiting five months for a ruling on my motion for a default judgment and Dandreta's untimely-filed motion to dismiss, Kottmyer dismissed the case "with prejudice".
Her ruling, in effect, denied to me my constitutional right to have my case heard before a jury of my peers.
Kottmyer's reasons alleged to justify her dismissal of my lawsuit contradicted her own ruling. She references case law where it states that "a complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim."
Kottmyer also conceded that the plaintiff should prevail over a motion to dismiss "unless it appears with certainty that he is entitled to no relief under any combination of facts that could be proved in support of his claims."
Among other things, I stated several claims supported by several facts, which I could prove with both documented evidence (i.e. a DSS report) and reliable witnesses.
My case against Dandreta was legitimate and my damages were real. Dandreta's slanderous lies were quoted by the judge in my custody case to justify sole custody to the mother of my son and by the appeals court to call my appeal "frivolous" and extort double the mother's attorney fees and costs from me.
Dandreta's actions also threatened my teaching job at Methuen High School.
After discussing all of the reasons why she could not dismiss my lawsuit, Kottmyer dismissed it with the absurd claim that Dandreta's eyewitness account of an incident that never happened constituted "opinion".
What Kottmyer creatively called opinion was Dandreta's lie that she had seen me "out of control verbally at the high school" and "fears me".
When I tried to make an analogy to communicate that even opinions have to have some basis in reality and rational thought, Kottmyer rudely interrupted me to say, "yeah, yeah, yeah, I get the point," which she obviously did not get based on her law-defying dismissal of the case.
Dandreta's slander was communicated for no other reason but to help "the mother" steal from me my parental rights to my son.
Kottmyer also ignorantly claimed that I could not claim "actionable harassment" for the malicious complaints and actions perpetrated against me because I am not a member of a "protected" class.
It should be noted that membership in a "protected class" is a requirement to allege actionable discrimination, NOT actionable harassment.
Consequently, in Kottmyer's kangaroo court, Dandreta was allowed to:
(1)defame my good name and reputation;
defame my good name and reputation;(2)use lies and misinformation to manipulate others to slander me;
use lies and misinformation to manipulate others to slander me;(3)conspire with the mother of my son to run me out of the school system;
conspire with the mother of my son to run me out of the school system; (4)conceal the results of a school investigation, which confirmed that the mother's chronic
conceal the results of a school investigation, which confirmed that the mother's chronic complaints against me were baseless and unfounded; (5)conceal the mother's history of nervous breakdowns, of which Dandreta was made
conceal the mother's history of nervous breakdowns, of which Dandreta was made aware to approve paying the Mother from our union's sick leave pool; (6)make up her own rules to prevent me, and others, from running against her for union
make up her own rules to prevent me, and others, from running against her for union president;(7)use my written request for MTA intervention into our union's corrupt election process to
use my written request for MTA intervention into our union's corrupt election process togenerate a school disruption, which her accomplices blamed on me to get me suspendedfor three days without pay;(8)and, with the help of her friends on the union's executive board, deny my request to take
and, with the help of her friends on the union's executive board, deny my request to takemy grievance of this illegal suspension to arbitration. These crimes were committed by a union that I was paying $600 per year in dues to represent me!
Listed below are links to the documents and testimony that Kottmyer had to ignore to rule against me:
