JUDGE DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK
Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind. 
- Hugo Black
- Hugo BlackOn October 4, 2006, I filed a Title 42 U.S. Code Section 1983 lawsuit against five judges involved in my lower court cases. The judges were sued for fraud, collusion, cover-up, extortion, and violations under color of law of federally-protected constitutional rights (USDC Case No. 06-11805-DPW).
I filed this case in U.S. District Court only after exhausting all of my options within the state of Massachusetts, taking my case all the way to the state's Supreme Judicial Court, where my application for Further Appellate Review was denied.
On November 27, 2007, I filed a second Title 42 U.S. Code Section 1983 lawsuit in federal court against the City of Methuen and the Massachusetts Teachers Association for deprivation of rights under color of law (USDC Case No. 07-12196-DPW).
To be more specific, Methuen's school superintendent, Phil Littlefield, put a "prior restraint" on my speech for self-serving reasons and then repeatedly alleged that his "prior restraint" had been violated to generate a paper trail of baseless warnings, reprimands, and suspensions against me. Ultimately, it was Littlefield's replacement, Jeanne C. Whitten, who wrongfully dismissed me from my tenured teaching position in Methuen.
Other claims contained in this lawsuit include provable claims of employer retaliation, defamation of character, concealment of material facts, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence (as it pertains to the employer's failure to respond to reported complaints of workplace harassment).
A supplemental claim was brought against the Massachusetts Teachers' Association and its local affiliate, the Methuen Education Association, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, for aiding and abetting the employers' efforts to wrongfully terminate me and for negligently and maliciously failing to provide me with legal services and costs, to which I was entitled as a paying union member.
The breach of my union's duty of fair representation was motivated solely by retaliation. My union chose to not represent me because of my whistleblower efforts against my local union president, whose loyal following was on the executive board that three times in three years voted to deny my requests for legal assistance and arbitration costs.
Both of these cases were assigned to Woodlock.
Shortly after I reported Woodlock to the chief judge of the First Circuit for sitting on my case against the judges for two years and for ruling on a motion that he did not read, Woodlock creatively interpreted the law to dismiss both of these lawsuits on the very same day.
Woodlock dismissed my case against the judges with the argument that the Eleventh Amendment gives judges immunity to defy the laws of the land that they have sworn to uphold and the absolute power to commit whatever crimes they want against litigants who come before them.
Woodlock also fraudulently alleged that I was seeking a modification of my child custody orders so that he could cite case law that did not apply to this case and ignore U.S. Supreme Court case law that did apply to this case.
The fact is that Woodlock dismissed this case:
(1)To prevent a jury from finding Judge Peter C. Digangi guilty of violating my
To prevent a jury from finding Judge Peter C. Digangi guilty of violating myconstitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.(2)To prevent a jury from finding Judge Mary McCauley Manzi guilty of defying the First
To prevent a jury from finding Judge Mary McCauley Manzi guilty of defying the FirstAmendment, obstructing justice, and attempting to extort from me the fees incurred bya court-appointed GAL.(3)And to prevent a jury from finding a three-judge panel of the Massachusetts Appeals
And to prevent a jury from finding a three-judge panel of the Massachusetts AppealsCourt guilty of fraud and extortion under color of law.Woodlock dismissed my lawsuit against the City of Methuen and the MTA with the law-defying claim that the First Amendment ONLY applies to speech that is on matters of public concern; the law-defying claim that a public school employer has the power to restrain speech on whatever topics it so chooses; and the fact-defying claim that the reporting of workplace harassment in a public school setting AND corruption in a labor union's election process are not matters of public concern.
Woodlock's dismissal of this case also defied the very case law that he ordered both parties to review (ie. Davignon v. Hodgson) and his own case law as it pertained to employment law (see Kimberly Stoyle v. Town of Mansfield, which I used as a template in writing my complaint).
Woodlock's memorandum and order focused exclusively on his creative interpretation of the First Amendment so that he could ignore all the other crimes committed against me by the City of Methuen and the MTA (i.e. employer retaliation, concealment of material facts, slander, breach of contract, negligence, and workplace harassment).
It should be noted that the law prohibits a judge from granting a motion to dismiss a pro se litigant's case unless the complaint cannot succeed on any of its claims for relief. All well-pleaded allegations of a claim are to be taken as true when ruling on a motion to dismiss a complaint under Fed Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6).
Woodlock's Memorandum and Order reveals that he blindly accepted the defendants' arguments, which are unsupported by the facts and applicable law, and completely disregarded every rebuttal argument expressed in my documents.
With regard to factual matters, Woodlock spun the facts in his Memorandum and Order to support his agenda. For example, I am misquoted on page 7 of the Memorandum and Order so that Woodlock could falsely imply that my word is not credible.
To be more specific, Woodlock took my assertion that I "had not been discussing [my] custody case in school", which was 100% accurate as it pertained to the time period surrounding a baseless directive that I had received, and took these words out of context to mean that I alleged that I "had not, in fact, ever discussed [my] custody case with anyone at the High School".
This misrepresentation of the facts allowed Woodlock to compare this deceptive statement to a second truthful and accurate statement, made by me in a separate document, to falsely allege that my version of what happened was inconsistent.
With regard to "controlling decisions", there is no evidence to suggest that Woodlock reviewed any of the legal arguments contained in my documents since his arguments defy the very law and case law cited in my November 27, 2007-filed Complaint; my January 21, 2008-filed Memorandum in Opposition to the MTA's Motion to Dismiss; my February 10, 2008-filed Memorandum in Opposition to the City of Methuen's Motion to Dismiss; my April 21, 2008-filed Addendum to my Opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and my May 16, 2008-filed Brief Requested by Woodlock, himself, to incorporate the case of Davignon v. Hodgson.
The fact is that I had a right to a jury trial as it pertained to my wrongful dismissal on the grounds that it was obtained through fraud and the pretext claim that my email, which reported an act of workplace harassment, violated a First Amendment-defying "prior restraint" on my speech.
I had a right to a jury trial as it pertained to my wrongful dismissal on the grounds that it was affirmed in defiance of the FACT that the Employer, with the burden of proof to overcome, did not prove a thing relevant to the arbitrator's law-defying decision and showed up to three separate evidentiary hearings on the matter without any admissible evidence or a single first-hand witness who I could confront under oath as a witness against me.
I had a right to a jury trial as it pertained to my wrongful dismissal on the grounds that the specific reason cited by the school to fire me was judged by three separate administrative agencies, including the arbitrator himself, to be baseless as a reason to fire me.
I had a right to a jury trial as it pertained to my union, which negligently failed to provide me with legal services and arbitration costs, to which I was entitled as a paying union member, and which conspired with my employer to run me out of the school system with slander.
The fact that I responded to both of these dismissals with motions for reconsideration, which detailed the reasons why Woodlock could NOT dismiss these cases, confirms that Woodlock KNOWINGLY defied the law to obstruct justice and retaliate against me.
Moreover, if Woodlock were an honorable judge, he would have recused himself from the case after learning of my misconduct complaint against him.
Incredibly, it was Woodlock, who stated publicly:
The courts are open and accessible to everyone and engaged, on a day-to-day basis, in attempting to craft judgments that reflect the highest aspirations of the profession... The soul of the American judicial system is the direct and constitutionally prescribed involvement of lay citizens as jurors in the determination of the facts underlying legal controversies... This courthouse is a place designed to do equal right to the poor and to the rich... with no other goal than to give each litigant a fair hearing.
I have learned that these are the words of a hypocrite.
If my civil rights were violated, and for purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss the Court is to assume that they were, then I had a right to a jury trial.
There is not a jury on this planet that would have ruled against me with the evidence and testimony that I was prepared to present in BOTH cases, which is the reason why Woodlock obstructed justice to prevent a jury outcome that he did not want to see happen.
Woodlock never had any intentions of allowing me my constitutionally-prescribed right to a jury trial as it pertained to my case against the judges and he vindictively dismissed my case against the City of Methuen and the MTA for reporting his crimes against me in a judicial misconduct complaint - a retaliation that I predicted in that very complaint.
Listed below are links to some of the documents that were filed with Woodlock and ignored by Woodlock to maliciously rule against me in two separate cases:
Lawsuit Against the Judges:
Lawsuit Against Methuen/MTA:
