Return to Transcript Volume II

Return to index of transcripts.

 0001
                                            Volume III   
                                            Pages 3-1 to 3-165
                                            Exhibits  See Index
              
                         COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT
                          Complaint No. 2000-110 et seq
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x   
                                                    :
              In the Matter of Investigation of:    :
              The Honorable Maria I. Lopez,         :
              Associate Justice, Superior Court     :
              Department                            :
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 
              
              BEFORE:  Hearing officer E. George Daher,
                         Chief Justice (Ret.)
              
                       Harvey Chopp, Clerk
                       Laurence Pierce, Clerk
              
              APPEARANCES:
              
                  Goodwin Procter
                       (by Paul F. Ware, Jr., Esq., Roberto 
                       M. Braceras, Esq., and Cheryl R.
                       Brunetti, Esq.) Exchange Place, Boston, MA  
                       02109, for the Commission on Judicial 
                       Conduct.
                       
              
                  Law Offices of Richard M. Egbert
                       (by Richard M. Egbert, Esq.
                       and Patricia A. DeJuneas, Esq.)
                       99 Summer Street, Suite 1800,
                       Boston, MA  02110, for the Honorable 
                       Maria I. Lopez.
              
              
                                    Held at:
                           Edward W. Brooke Courthouse
                              24 New Chardon Street
                              Boston, Massachusetts
                          Wednesday, November 20, 2002
                                    9:33 a.m.
              
                              (Carol H. Kusinitz, 
                        Registered Professional Reporter)
              
 0002
          1                         I N D E X
              
          2   WITNESS        DIRECT  CROSS  REDIRECT  RECROSS
              
          3   Maria Lopez
               (by Mr. Ware)  3-24
          4   
               (by Mr. Egbert)        3-75
          5   
                                    *  *  * 
          6   
                                 E X H I B I T S
          7   
              EX. NO.                                     ID  EVID
          8   
              31  Two complaints filed by                     3-22
          9       Angela Beaucage
              
         10   53)
              to) Complaints                                  3-22
         11   63)
              
         12   M   Document entitled "Diagnostic and          3-113
                  Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders"
         13   
         14   
         15   
         16   
         17   
         18   
         19   
         20   
         21   
         22   
         23   
         24   
 0003
          1                   P R O C E E D I N G S
          2            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Good morning, 
          3   everyone.  I'm going to deal with two motions, the 
          4   first being the transcript of what occurred on April 
          5   the 18th, 2002.  It seems that at some time prior to 
          6   April 18th, 2002, Mr. Mone had conversations with 
          7   Mr. Ware, who was the agent of the Judicial Conduct 
          8   Commission. 
          9            In no uncertain terms it appears that Mr. 
         10   Ware notified Mr. Mone that he cannot any further 
         11   negotiate with Mr. Mone, because it's outside the 
         12   scope of his authority, and that Mr. Mone should 
         13   deal with the principal directly. 
         14            There is no evidence proffered yesterday to 
         15   indicate that the principal, the JCC, contacted Mr. 
         16   Mone to appear, but rather that Mr. Mone voluntarily 
         17   sought his statutory -- to enforce the statutory 
         18   right to appear before the Judicial Conduct 
         19   Commission. 
         20            At no time was it proffered yesterday that 
         21   any comments other than that made by Mr. Mone and by 
         22   Judge Lopez indicated that there were negotiations 
         23   taking place at this time. 
         24            Therefore, it appears that the offer to 
 0004
          1   compromise was a hope, a desire by Mr. Mone to 
          2   engage the Judicial Conduct Commission to negotiate, 
          3   to enter, hopefully make a response to his proposed 
          4   resolution. 
          5            That being the case, I cannot in good 
          6   conscience find that there was an offer of 
          7   compromise, and the document goes in, the April 18th 
          8   document. 
          9            MR. EGBERT:  Judge.
         10            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Yes, sir.
         11            MR. EGBERT:  There are two matters that are 
         12   left out, Your Honor.
         13            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I beg your pardon?
         14            MR. EGBERT:  There are two matters that are 
         15   left out.
         16            MR. WARE:  Your Honor, I object.  We have 
         17   been over this issue and over --
         18            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I want to hear it.  
         19   Go ahead.  What do you want to say?
         20            MR. EGBERT:  One is, Your Honor, the 
         21   transcript contains the statements of Mr. Mone.  
         22   They should be excluded.
         23            MR. WARE:  No, Your Honor.  He is the agent 
         24   of the Defendant. 
 0005
          1            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Go ahead.  I want 
          2   to hear it.
          3            MR. EGBERT:  Whether he be an agent of the 
          4   Defendant or not, much of them are unrelated to the 
          5   factual issues in this case.
          6            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  But were they in 
          7   the scope?   Again, it's coming down with a 
          8   principal/agency relationship.  Were they within the 
          9   scope of what Mr. Mone was authorized to make?  And 
         10   his client, Judge Lopez, was right next to him.  It 
         11   would appear to me that it was within the 
         12   parameters.
         13            MR. EGBERT:  They're irrelevant as to 
         14   whether or not a violation of the canons took place.  
         15   What Mr. Mone's opinion is, what his statements were 
         16   concerning his opinion of the case or what -- how it 
         17   ought to be disposed of and the like are irrelevant 
         18   to the issue before you as to whether or not there 
         19   were violations of the canons, and if there were, 
         20   what recommendations were to be made. 
         21            Number two, no one has overcome yet, as far 
         22   as I can see, the fact that these were confidential 
         23   communications which have not been lifted by these 
         24   formal proceedings.  The formal proceedings, by 
 0006
          1   rule, only lift the confidentiality of the statement 
          2   of formal procedures, any evidentiary hearings, 
          3   which these clearly were not, and any findings by 
          4   you as a result of those evidentiary hearings.  And 
          5   the Commission rule states clearly, pursuant to 
          6   statute, that those matters remain confidential and 
          7   therefore are not matters which can be put in 
          8   evidence in this case. 
          9            MR. WARE:  Your Honor, first of all, when a 
         10   Hearing Officer makes a ruling here, I don't think 
         11   it is up to us to come back and redebate the issue 
         12   which we have talked about for the last two days.
         13            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I would like to 
         14   hear it.
         15            MR. WARE:  But, since we are doing that, 
         16   the Court is absolutely correct in its instinct that 
         17   counsel is an agent, and indeed the cases before 
         18   you, both the Hanson case and the Harvard College 
         19   case, in which I happened to be counsel for Harvard 
         20   College, rule that statements of a lawyer are in 
         21   fact binding on the party.  
         22            This case is an even stronger case for 
         23   admissibility of that evidence, because it wasn't 
         24   simply counsel.  The Respondent, Judge Lopez, was, 
 0007
          1   as you pointed out, sitting right next to him.  She 
          2   was in the room.  So even under traditional rules of 
          3   admission by silence or any other kind of admission, 
          4   they are admissions of the Judge when her lawyer 
          5   makes them in that context. 
          6            So the ruling is entirely correct.  
          7            I think, as I said yesterday -- and I would 
          8   be repeating myself -- the issue of confidentiality 
          9   changes once there are formal charges.  And, 
         10   finally, Your Honor, once again, the parties by 
         11   definition have entrusted to the Court the 
         12   discretion here.  We don't have a jury case.  We 
         13   don't have to worry about prejudice or undue use of 
         14   a particular document.  That's one of the virtues of 
         15   a proceeding in which you, as a judge of 30 years, 
         16   have discretion and can weigh the vitality or 
         17   importance of any particular document. 
         18            And so, again, I think the ruling is 
         19   correct. 
         20            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Anything else to 
         21   add, Mr. Egbert? 
         22            MR. EGBERT:  No, Your Honor.
         23            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Okay.  Your 
         24   objection is noted.  However, the Court's ruling 
 0008
          1   stands. 
          2            More troublesome was the second motion, the 
          3   Commission's motion on the admissibility of 
          4   newspaper articles and complaints.  I read into the 
          5   record 211C, Section 5(1), entitled "Initiation of 
          6   Proceedings; Inquiry, Investigation and Evaluation; 
          7   Detailed Complaint or Statement of Allegation, 
          8   Formal Charges." 
          9            "1.  The Commission proceedings relating to 
         10   the conduct of a judge may be initiated by an oral 
         11   or written complaint stating facts that, if true, 
         12   would be grounds for discipline, or by the 
         13   Commission's own motion," own motion, emphasis 
         14   added, "when the Commission receives reasonable 
         15   information, including reports in the news media, as 
         16   to conduct that appears to constitute grounds for 
         17   discipline.  Upon receipt of such complaints or 
         18   adoption of such a motion the Commission shall 
         19   promptly notify the judge, except as provided in 
         20   Subdivision 2, and shall conduct a prompt, discrete 
         21   and confidential inquiry, investigation and 
         22   evaluation." 
         23            Follow that up with the careful study of 
         24   Lyons Partnership LP versus Morris Costumes, Inc., 
 0009
          1   243 Federal 3rd., 789,804, 4th Circuit, in 201, 
          2   which support the proposition that these documents 
          3   should be admissible.
          4            That is the ruling of this Court, unless 
          5   you can convince me otherwise, Mr. Egbert. 
          6            MR. EGBERT:  Your Honor --
          7            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I've gone through 
          8   the three cases that you've just sent up to me.  
          9   I've gone through them --
         10            MR. EGBERT:  I must confess that I think 
         11   the Court is being misled by the purple dinosaur 
         12   case, the Lyons Partnership case, and it's for the 
         13   following reason:  In that case the newspaper 
         14   articles were let in, not to prove that the dinosaur 
         15   in question was Barney, but to show, because someone 
         16   mistook him for Barney, that that mistake could be 
         17   made.  It didn't matter at all as to whether or not 
         18   it was Barney.  It mattered that, when looking at 
         19   it, people were making mistakes about it. 
         20            In this particular instance, the complaints 
         21   that you've received are only worthy if the 
         22   statements made therein are true, the classic form 
         23   of hearsay.  For example -- I'll take smatterings of 
         24   these complaints.
 0010
          1            "I am so disillusioned with our judicial 
          2   system" --
          3            MR. WARE:  Excuse me, Rich.  Could you give 
          4   me the exhibit number.
          5            MR. EGBERT:  52.
          6            "I am so disillusioned with our judicial 
          7   system."  That is of no consequence if it's not a 
          8   true statement.  If it's being offered for its 
          9   truth, then it's hearsay.  And if it's being offered 
         10   for its truth and it's hearsay, certainly it should 
         11   not be admitted, number one, without an exception to 
         12   the hearsay rule.  
         13            Two, they should be -- if it is going to be 
         14   permitted, then I should be able to bring these 
         15   people in and cross-examine them --
         16            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I'm glad you 
         17   brought that up, and I suspected you would.  After 
         18   two years -- and you've had ample opportunity to do 
         19   that -- because of the enormity of this case, I'm -- 
         20   if you make a motion, if you make a motion to bring 
         21   these people in and it's opposed by Mr. Ware, I'm 
         22   going to overrule his opposition and allow you to 
         23   bring these people in.
         24            MR. EGBERT:  Fine.
 0011
          1            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  If you want to do 
          2   that, subpoena in these people -- I envisioned this 
          3   coming up -- I'm going to allow you to do it, even 
          4   though it's two years --
          5            MR. EGBERT:  Judge, when you say even 
          6   though it's two years, I want --
          7            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Go ahead. 
          8            MR. EGBERT:  -- I want the record to be 
          9   quite clear.  Today is the hearing.
         10            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Exactly.
         11            MR. EGBERT:  Today is the hearing.  And I 
         12   didn't think for a minute that this Court would 
         13   accept hearsay statements from these people or that 
         14   they would be offered for that regard. 
         15            In fact, the Commission keeps telling you 
         16   that they aren't being offered for the truth of the 
         17   statements, all right, that they're offered only for 
         18   the fact that they were said, which I suggest is not 
         19   something that would cause a subpoena.  It is only 
         20   if they're being offered --
         21            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Under 211(5), 
         22   Section 1, Mr. Egbert, it would appear that the 
         23   judicial -- the legitimacy, the statutory basis, the 
         24   underpinnings of their investigation of Judge Lopez 
 0012
          1   was predicated --
          2            MR. EGBERT:  A dead red herring.  A dead 
          3   red herring.  A criminal trial is predicated on an 
          4   indictment.  An indictment is not evidence.  A civil 
          5   trial is predicated on a complaint.  The complaint 
          6   is not evidence.  All of those go to the 
          7   jurisdiction of the Court, the jurisdiction of the 
          8   hearing, and the competency and the ability to 
          9   conduct it.  Those matters are conducted pretrial. 
         10            In other words, an attack on jurisdiction 
         11   warrants a look to see the complaint.  An attack on 
         12   the sufficiency of the complaint looks to the four 
         13   corners of the complaint.  An attack upon the 
         14   jurisdiction of the Court looks to the statute to 
         15   see whether it's been complied with.  None of that 
         16   is going on in this proceeding.  It's simply a 
         17   misdirection to this Court in an attempt to get them 
         18   in. 
         19            As clear and unequivocal proof of that, I 
         20   put on the record today that the jurisdiction of the 
         21   JCC is not challenged in this proceeding and has not 
         22   been challenged in this proceeding.  We are here for 
         23   a hearing on the facts to determine whether or not 
         24   the canons of ethics were violated.
 0013
          1            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Let me point you 
          2   to, again -- I spent some time on it carefully last 
          3   night -- "or by the Commission's own motion, when 
          4   the Commission receives reasonable information."  
          5   Wouldn't this fall within the purview of reasonable 
          6   information?
          7            MR. EGBERT:  Judge, respectfully --
          8            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Go ahead.  
          9            MR. EGBERT:  -- I think you're on the wrong 
         10   road.
         11            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Tell me. 
         12            MR. EGBERT:  Yes, the Commission can 
         13   initiate investigations based upon television shows, 
         14   newspaper articles, whispers, rumors, things they 
         15   heard in the bathroom under a stall.  They can 
         16   initiate -- no one suggests they can't.  They can do 
         17   it on their own motion.  They can wake up one 
         18   morning and say, "Ah, this is something we would 
         19   like to do." 
         20            None of that is evidence, however, of 
         21   conduct, none of it.  That is as to whether or not 
         22   they have the right to conduct a proceeding --
         23            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  They're not 
         24   introducing it for the truthfulness of the 
 0014
          1   statements.  I mean --
          2            MR. EGBERT:  That's baloney.  Then what is 
          3   its relevant purpose?  If it is not for the 
          4   truthfulness of it, what relevant purpose does it 
          5   have?  Because when you get a statement and it 
          6   says --
          7            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Mr. Ware, he's 
          8   stating it's overkill, that you really don't need 
          9   that.   You could have initiated the action without 
         10   these -- without all of these complaints.
         11            MR. EGBERT:  Judge, I'm sorry, I'm not --
         12            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Go ahead.
         13            MR. EGBERT:  I may quarrel with the Court, 
         14   but if I'm not making myself understood, then it is 
         15   my fault, and I would like another shot at it.
         16            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Go ahead.  Take as 
         17   much time as you need. 
         18            MR. EGBERT:  In a contract case, where this 
         19   typically comes up, "I accept" is not hearsay, 
         20   because the fact that the words were spoken has 
         21   independent legal significance in a contract case.
         22            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Right. 
         23            MR. EGBERT:  There is nothing in these 
         24   complaints, in the content of these complaints, 
 0015
          1   which has, by themselves, any independent 
          2   significance evidentiary-wise in this case.  They're 
          3   not relevant to the issues before you. 
          4            The issues that you've been sent to 
          5   determine are not -- by the way, as the Commission 
          6   said so often in their -- in our motion to dismiss, 
          7   they are saying to you, you have no jurisdiction to 
          8   consider whether or not these charges were within 
          9   the jurisdiction of the JCC.  Nor are you here --
         10            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  But again, Mr. 
         11   Egbert, bear with me.  You know, these statements, 
         12   you know, in a sense brought the judiciary into 
         13   disrepute.  I mean --
         14            MR. EGBERT:  If they're true.  If they're 
         15   true.  That's -- look, that's the issue.  If they 
         16   have a public or if they had a public -- and then 
         17   there is a question of whether it's an objective or 
         18   subjective statute, which I would argue then.  But 
         19   from an evidentiary standpoint, you just hit the 
         20   nail on the head.  It doesn't do any good unless 
         21   these statements are true. 
         22            If you're taking them for the truth, it's 
         23   hearsay.  If it's hearsay, it's inadmissible for all 
         24   the very reasons that one would expect, that you've 
 0016
          1   got out there anonymous --
          2            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Wouldn't you 
          3   bifurcate -- help me -- wouldn't you bifurcate them 
          4   in the sense that comments that were made, i.e., in 
          5   regards to sentencing, would be outside the scope, 
          6   something for an appellate tribunal, versus 
          7   statements that the Judicial Conduct Commission 
          8   received, i.e., in regards to her alleged demeanor, 
          9   et cetera, that would be something that they could 
         10   consider? 
         11            MR. EGBERT:  Judge, let me ask this 
         12   question, because I think it sits well. 
         13            If tomorrow this Court receives a thousand 
         14   letters indicating -- indicating that Judge Lopez 
         15   and her conduct did not in any way affect their 
         16   confidence in the judiciary or in any way affect 
         17   their belief in the independence of the judiciary, 
         18   will you admit those? 
         19            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Would I admit them? 
         20            MR. EGBERT:  Yes.  Would you admit them in 
         21   evidence?  Because it's the same thing. 
         22            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  But, again --
         23            MR. EGBERT:  They're offering to you 
         24   unsworn statements, letters --
 0017
          1            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  These are 
          2   extrajudicial statements.  However, we're talking 
          3   about a Commission that's empowered under 211, 
          4   Section 5, to protect the integrity of the 
          5   judiciary, the public perception.  They get these 
          6   communications.  They're not in for the truthfulness 
          7   of them.  They are in there.  Do we have a statutory 
          8   basis to conduct an investigation on Judge Lopez.
          9            MR. EGBERT:  That's not an issue before 
         10   you.  It is simply not an issue before you.  You're 
         11   taking evidence on an issue that's not before you.  
         12   It's like taking evidence on whether or not the 
         13   Commission's members were duly elected.  It has 
         14   absolutely nothing to do with what's before you, and 
         15   that's what the issue is. 
         16            So if what you're saying is that it's being 
         17   offered to show that the Commission conducted an 
         18   investigation under the statute, that's simply not 
         19   before you, period.  You couldn't rule -- with all 
         20   due respect, Your Honor, you couldn't rule today, 
         21   tomorrow or the next day whether or not that was the 
         22   case.  And in fact the Commission submitted briefs 
         23   to you at the outset of the case saying just that:  
         24   Jurisdictional matters are not before you.  You are 
 0018
          1   here to find facts on these issues and make 
          2   recommendations.  
          3            And that's the problem.  If you let 
          4   these -- if you let these in in any way, then you've 
          5   done nothing more than letting in letters from third 
          6   parties uncross-examined, saying, "We don't like 
          7   it," or "We do like it," without knowing what they 
          8   base it on, what they saw, heard, whether they were 
          9   biased, whether they were put up to it and the like.  
         10   And I suggest to you that's no different than you 
         11   getting a thousand letters tomorrow -- which I can 
         12   assure you you will get; I assure you you will get 
         13   -- in response to these letters. 
         14            This is a hearing with people and evidence. 
         15            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Mr. Ware. 
         16            MR. WARE:  Your Honor, I would simply 
         17   observe that the ruling that the Court has announced 
         18   is entirely appropriate.  There are some dramatic 
         19   differences between my colleague's suggestion of 
         20   your getting a thousand letters tomorrow and this 
         21   case, and one of those differences, as I said 
         22   yesterday, is due process. 
         23            This Court is the arbiter of that due 
         24   process.  The rules are set up before the Commission 
 0019
          1   on Judicial Conduct to provide the Judge an 
          2   opportunity to defend herself; and indeed, through 
          3   four lawyers and two years, she has done so.  And 
          4   she's done so by taking a number of depositions out 
          5   of court during which her counsel has been present 
          6   and had an opportunity to question witnesses.  She 
          7   has done so by testing the validity of the charges 
          8   against her, and she is doing so today by sitting in 
          9   this courtroom before this distinguished Judge, 
         10   presenting evidence in her own behalf and responding 
         11   to evidence presented by the Commission. 
         12            That's dramatically different than a 
         13   situation in which a flood of letters comes in and 
         14   the Court is asked to admit those. 
         15            Obviously the Commission would not seek to 
         16   have those letters admitted.  And, among other 
         17   reasons, they would not be the basis for this 
         18   investigation.  As you correctly point out, and have 
         19   pointed out repeatedly, the issue here is not the 
         20   truthfulness of an individual complaint.  And 
         21   Exhibit 52 for identification is an example.  We are 
         22   not seeking to prove that this particular --
         23            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  That was going to 
         24   be excluded anyhow.  I have it in my notes here. 
 0020
          1            MR. WARE:  We're not seeking to prove that 
          2   a particular individual's view of what the Judge did 
          3   was or was not correct.  
          4            On the other hand, we are seeking to prove 
          5   that the Commission has a basis to act here, number 
          6   one, and number two, as you correctly pointed out 
          7   repeatedly, the issue is public confidence under 
          8   Canon 2, and the issue is standards of integrity and 
          9   conduct such that the image and the substance of the 
         10   judiciary is promoted. 
         11            The issue of promotion of public confidence 
         12   is before the Court, and the very fact that the 
         13   public reacts, which is all a complaint shows us, is 
         14   relevant here.  Even if the public is wrong, it's 
         15   relevant that they've reacted to something they've 
         16   seen the Judge do in the Horton case. 
         17            So I think, Your Honor, for all of those 
         18   reasons, in addition to which -- in addition to 
         19   those that I've stated in the past and given you in 
         20   writing, I think the ruling is absolutely correct. 
         21            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Mr. Egbert, 
         22   anything else? 
         23            MR. EGBERT:  Your Honor, I am just 
         24   astounded that the Commission wants you to go down 
 0021
          1   this road, quite frankly.  And the law is quite 
          2   clear.  The question of public confidence is an 
          3   objective standard, not to be determined by the man 
          4   on the street or by a singular piece of evidence. 
          5            I suggest to you that what they're arguing 
          6   to you is that you can go out on the street and ask 
          7   any uninformed person what their opinion is, and no 
          8   matter what the basis of their opinion is, even if 
          9   it's based upon the fact that they don't like 
         10   Superior Court judges in any event, or they don't 
         11   like our system, or they don't like male judges or 
         12   female judges or the like, that that means that 
         13   that's satisfactory or legitimate evidence in a case 
         14   where due process is required.  So I suggest it's 
         15   wrong, and I think it's a road that will be 
         16   mistakenly traveled. 
         17            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  What I've 
         18   indicated, in regard to Exhibit No. 2, I'm going to 
         19   exclude that, inasmuch as it deals with -- as it 
         20   deals with sentencing.  On the other hand, the rest 
         21   of the proffered evidence is admitted, as it relates 
         22   in some fashion to conduct and the statutory 
         23   authority of the Judicial Conduct Commission to 
         24   conduct the investigation. 
 0022
          1            You may proceed with the interrogation.
          2            MR. WARE:  Your Honor, I'm not clear what 
          3   you excluded.  Are you saying Exhibit 52?
          4            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  52. 
          5            MR. WARE:  Your Honor, in that regard, I 
          6   just ask the Court to note that the complaint is 
          7   quite specific to the complainants' observations.  
          8   But if the ruling is that 52 is out and the others 
          9   are in, I'm not going to make an issue.
         10            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  That's my ruling. 
         11            MR. WARE:  Thank you, Your Honor. 
         12            For the record, Your Honor, the Court has 
         13   admitted, as I understand it, Exhibits 31 and 52 -- 
         14   excuse me -- 53 through 63. 
         15                 (Documents marked as Exhibits 31 and 
         16                 53 through 63 in evidence)
         17            MR. WARE:  With that, I would like to 
         18   resume the examination of Judge Lopez.
         19            MR. EGBERT:  Judge, I'm going to ask --
         20            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Yes, what do you 
         21   want to do?
         22            MR. EGBERT:  Judge, again, because I think 
         23   sometimes records are important, would the Court 
         24   respectfully put on the record the use that these -- 
 0023
          1   strike that -- the use that the factfinder may put 
          2   to these exhibits, the purposes for which this Court 
          3   is accepting them.
          4            MR. WARE:  No, Your Honor.  I mean, you are 
          5   the Judge here, not Mr. Egbert, and not me, and 
          6   you're entitled to make such use of them as you 
          7   want. 
          8            I will represent again, on the record, that 
          9   they're not being offered for the truth of the 
         10   matters asserted.  I'm not asking the Court to draw 
         11   an inference from an individual complaint --
         12            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Mr. Egbert, we're 
         13   not dealing with a jury, and I --
         14            MR. EGBERT:  Judge, and because we're not 
         15   dealing with a jury -- if we were dealing with a 
         16   jury, I would ask you to instruct the jury.
         17            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Right.
         18            MR. EGBERT:  So instead, I think the rules 
         19   require, in civil proceedings, that -- particularly 
         20   then where there is not a jury, that the Court will 
         21   indicate, as if he was instructing a jury, what the 
         22   Court is accepting these for so that there is a 
         23   record of what's happening.  It's done -- that's 
         24   exactly what is done in a civil proceeding, it seems 
 0024
          1   to me, so that any reviewing court, should there 
          2   ever be one, can determine whether or not these were 
          3   admitted for a proper purpose. 
          4            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I see no problems 
          5   with that.  Again, Mr. Ware? 
          6            MR. WARE:  If the Court wishes to make such 
          7   a statement, that's okay with me.  I don't think you 
          8   need to do that or are obligated to do that.
          9            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  At the proper time 
         10   I certainly will.
         11            MR. EGBERT:  Thank you. 
         12            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Go ahead.
         13    
         14               MARIA LOPEZ, Previously Sworn
         15               CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION
         16            COURT OFFICER:  Judge, you are still under 
         17   oath.
         18            THE WITNESS:  I am under oath.
         19            MR. EGBERT:  Just quickly, so we can get 
         20   this process moving, I would orally move at this 
         21   time for the right to subpoena the named 
         22   complainants in this case to these proceedings.
         23            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Any objection? 
         24            MR. WARE:  Yes.  The Commission objects to 
 0025
          1   subpoenaing the complaining witnesses for precisely 
          2   the reasons that you admitted the documents.  You 
          3   admitted them not for the truth; therefore, the 
          4   content as such, their personal views are irrelevant 
          5   here.
          6            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Mr. Egbert pointed 
          7   out yesterday that they may have gotten together in 
          8   some form of a cabal or some kind of -- on the 
          9   Internet or there may be an orchestration of people 
         10   getting together and saying, look, let's write these 
         11   communications against Judge Lopez.  I find it to be 
         12   a very remote possibility.  However, because the 
         13   enormity of what's at stake, I'm going to allow Mr. 
         14   Egbert to do that. 
         15       BY MR. WARE: 
         16       Q.   Good morning, Judge.
         17       A.   Good morning, Mr. Ware. 
         18       Q.   You and I talked briefly yesterday about 
         19   your telephone calls to Ms. Goldbach of the 
         20   Committee for Public Counsel Services, and I would 
         21   like to get back to that for a minute, if I may.
         22       A.   Yes.
         23       Q.   You indicated that you called her sometime 
         24   following the sentencing,in the first few days; 
 0026
          1   isn't that right?
          2       A.   After September 6th, yes. 
          3       Q.   All right.  And can you tell us how many 
          4   phone calls you made to Ms. Goldbach?
          5       A.   I made one phone call, to my recollection.
          6       Q.   Only one phone call; is that your 
          7   testimony?
          8       A.   Yes. 
          9       Q.   In the conversation you discussed with her 
         10   how you were doing --
         11       A.   Well, I just want to go back on that.  
         12   There was that beeper message.  I don't know if you 
         13   would consider that a phone call or not.
         14       Q.   What are you referring to?  Are you saying 
         15   you received a beeper message from Ms. Goldbach?
         16       A.   No.  I received a call from Ms. Goldbach 
         17   giving me Jay Greene's beeper number.
         18       Q.   And was that a separate telephone call from 
         19   what you described as the one time you called her? 
         20       A.   Yes.  But that was a message on the voice 
         21   mail.  It was not a conversation I had with her. 
         22       Q.   So, as I understand your testimony then, 
         23   you called Ms. Goldbach on one occasion, and you had 
         24   a conversation.  On a separate occasion, you 
 0027
          1   received a voice mail from Ms. Goldbach to which you 
          2   responded? 
          3       A.   Correct. 
          4       Q.   Now, in the conversation you had with Ms. 
          5   Goldbach, you discussed with her how you were doing 
          6   and the fact that she as defense counsel was 
          7   sympathetic to your plight, so to speak; is that 
          8   correct? 
          9       A.   That's correct. 
         10       Q.   And she called you, as you previously 
         11   characterized it, to commiserate about the press 
         12   reaction to your sentence; isn't that so? 
         13       A.   We were discussing the frenzy, the frenzy 
         14   that was going on about this case. 
         15       Q.   And defense counsel, in your view, was 
         16   being supportive of you and concerned during that 
         17   conversation; is that right? 
         18       A.   Yes.  I believe that. 
         19       Q.   You said you also received a beeper 
         20   message, and as a result of that message, did you 
         21   speak with Ms. Goldbach? 
         22       A.   No. 
         23       Q.   All you did -- you got a beeper message 
         24   that said what? 
 0028
          1       A.   It wasn't my beeper.  I got a message from 
          2   Ms. Goldbach that said that she was in Dorchester 
          3   District Court with Detective Jay Greene, who wanted 
          4   to speak with me, and then she left Mr. Greene's 
          5   beeper number --
          6       Q.   Was this --
          7       A.   -- for me.
          8       Q.   Was this a handwritten message that you 
          9   received?
         10       A.   No.  It was a voice mail.
         11       Q.   And so Ms. Goldbach called a number at the 
         12   Court which she knew to be your voice mail?
         13       A.   I'm not sure that --
         14            MR. EGBERT:  Objection.
         15            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  What's the 
         16   objection?
         17            MR. EGBERT:  How can she know what Ms. 
         18   Goldbach knew? 
         19            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Sustained.
         20       Q.   Well, tell us what -- on what phone?  What 
         21   number was this message from Ms. Goldbach in which 
         22   she had confidence that she could leave a personal 
         23   phone mail?
         24            MR. EGBERT:  Objection.  Move to strike. 
 0029
          1            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Mr. Ware, do you 
          2   want to be heard?
          3            MR. WARE:  No, I don't want to be heard.
          4            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Good point.  
          5   Sustained.
          6       Q.   What was the phone number she called and 
          7   left you this message on?
          8       A.   It was -- well, I don't know what number 
          9   she called.  I know where I picked up the voice 
         10   mail. 
         11       Q.   You don't think there's a correspondence 
         12   between those two things?
         13       A.   It could have been transferred in from the 
         14   clerk's office into the voice mail box.
         15       Q.   Where did you find the voice mail message?
         16       A.   On the -- in the phone in the lobby in 
         17   Middlesex. 
         18       Q.   During your conversation with Ms. Goldbach, 
         19   the one in which you actually spoke to her, did you 
         20   give her your phone number? 
         21       A.   No, because I think my conversation with 
         22   her occurred after the message about the beeper 
         23   number.
         24       Q.   So the sequence, as you understand it or as 
 0030
          1   you recall it, is that you received a voice mail 
          2   message at the Court from Ms. Goldbach, and what 
          3   that voice mail message said was, "Detective Greene 
          4   wants to talk to you.  Here is his beeper number," 
          5   more or less? 
          6       A.   Correct.
          7       Q.   What did you do as a result of having 
          8   gotten that beeper number? 
          9       A.   I called the beeper number.
         10       Q.   And --
         11       A.   And left my number.
         12       Q.   And that was the occasion on which you 
         13   spoke to Detective Greene? 
         14       A.   And he returned that beeper call, yes.
         15       Q.   Following all of your dealings with Mr. 
         16   Greene, you then called Ms. Goldbach, correct?
         17       A.   I believe so. 
         18       Q.   And so by the time you talked to Ms. 
         19   Goldbach, you had already spoken with Detective 
         20   Greene.
         21       A.   Correct. 
         22       Q.   When you spoke to Ms. Goldbach, did you 
         23   talk about Mr. Horton? 
         24       A.   No.  We talked about the press surrounding 
 0031
          1   this case, and I was telling her the kinds of things 
          2   that were happening to me and my family, how 
          3   outraged I was that there was this kind of response 
          4   to this; and, you know, we had that kind of a 
          5   conversation.  I may have inquired as to how she was 
          6   doing.
          7       Q.   Did you tell her that you had spoken with 
          8   Detective Greene? 
          9       A.   I might have.  I don't remember. 
         10       Q.   Did you tell her what Mr. Greene said to 
         11   you? 
         12       A.   I don't recall that. 
         13       Q.   Did you have any conversation about the 
         14   fact that she had left you a message on your voice 
         15   mail at the Court to call a Boston police detective, 
         16   you had called the detective, you had gotten some 
         17   information?  Did you tell her anything about that? 
         18       A.   Possibly I could have said -- I did speak 
         19   to --
         20       Q.   I'm asking you a different question.  Do 
         21   you remember saying anything about that? 
         22       A.   I don't have a recollection of it, no. 
         23       Q.   In your conversations with Ms. Goldbach, 
         24   you were talking really about the fallout from the 
 0032
          1   sentencing and the media attention in the Horton 
          2   case, correct? 
          3       A.   Yes, and its impact on me and on my family. 
          4       Q.   And then at some time you had a 
          5   conversation with Mr. Leahy, you told us; is that 
          6   right? 
          7       A.   Yes. 
          8       Q.   And I think you said yesterday that, in 
          9   your conversation with Mr. Leahy, you were asking 
         10   him to defend in public the process, the judiciary, 
         11   your sentence, all of those things; isn't that so? 
         12       A.   All of the above, and however he decided to 
         13   do it, but certainly see if he could speak on the 
         14   issue, yes.
         15            MR. WARE:  Could you put up Slide 56 for 
         16   me. 
         17       Q.   Let me direct you briefly to the testimony 
         18   on the monitor, which appears at Page 109.  Judge, 
         19   if you're working from the transcript, Exhibit 32, 
         20   it is Page 109, I think essentially Lines 2 through 
         21   9.  
         22            In your conversations with Mr. Leahy you 
         23   have indicated in your previous sworn testimony that 
         24   you made the point to him that it was important to 
 0033
          1   you that your sentence not be misperceived or your 
          2   decision not be misperceived; is that correct?
          3       A.   As having released a predatory pedophile, 
          4   yes.
          5       Q.   And so your conversation with Mr. Leahy was 
          6   that you had not released a predatory pedophile; 
          7   isn't that correct?
          8       A.   That's correct.  That's what the public was 
          9   concerned about, that's what the media was 
         10   reporting, and that was of major concern, to put 
         11   some perspective on this case. 
         12       Q.   Now, Mr. Leahy was not counsel in the case, 
         13   was he? 
         14       A.   No.  He is the executive director, I 
         15   believe is his title. 
         16       Q.   And when you talked to him, you say, 
         17   beginning at Line 8, or let's say Line 6,  
         18   "Question:  You wanted him," Mr. Leahy, "to make the 
         19   point that this was not a predatory pedophile?" 
         20            In Lines 9 and 10:  "I wanted that out, 
         21   yes."
         22       A.   Yes.
         23       Q.   "I wanted I did not release a predatory 
         24   pedophile.  I was being accused of this."  Is that 
 0034
          1   what you said on that occasion? 
          2       A.   That's what I said, yes. 
          3       Q.   And you were hopeful, were you not, that 
          4   both Mr. Leahy, as executive director, and for that 
          5   matter Ms. Goldbach would defend your sentence?
          6       A.   Yes.  I mean, I don't think it was explicit 
          7   with Ms. Goldbach.  I don't know if that was on my 
          8   mind when I was talking with her, but it clearly was 
          9   on my mind when I spoke with Mr. Leahy. 
         10       Q.   Let me ask you just briefly to take a look 
         11   at Page 110, Lines 4 through 8.  You were asked, 
         12   when you testified before Commission counsel under 
         13   oath:  "Question:  You were hopeful that Mr. Leahy" 
         14   -- and I've put this up the on monitor as well -- 
         15   "and for that matter Ms. Goldbach would defend the 
         16   system and defend the sentence; isn't that correct?"  
         17   And you said, "Yes"; isn't that so?
         18       A.   Yes.  But in Line 11 I clearly state that 
         19   "To Mr. Leahy."  I don't recall Ms. Goldbach.  So it 
         20   wasn't a clear -- in my deposition I wasn't clear 
         21   what my intent was as to Ms. Goldbach. 
         22            MR. EGBERT:  Judge, I must object to this 
         23   point based -- I object at this point, based upon 
         24   the way this screen is being used to mislead this 
 0035
          1   witness.  They deliberately put up this block to 
          2   cover an answer which clearly says what she has, and 
          3   I think it's important for the record to show the 
          4   kind of manipulation that the JCC and its counsel 
          5   are involved in here with the witness in this 
          6   regard. 
          7            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  In other words, the 
          8   fact that they're highlighting something? 
          9            MR. EGBERT:  No.  In other words, he 
         10   asked -- he asked Judge Lopez right now this 
         11   question:  "You were hopeful that Mr. Leahy, and for 
         12   that matter, Ms. Goldbach would defend the system 
         13   and defend the sentence."  You can see that block 
         14   there, right? 
         15            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Right.
         16            MR. EGBERT:  And it was to impeach her, 
         17   so-called, to show that she never said that it 
         18   wasn't really Ms. Goldbach. 
         19            Well, the line that they're actually 
         20   covering up is where she says, just after that, "To 
         21   Mr. Leahy.  I don't recall Ms. Goldbach as a -- I 
         22   don't recall Ms. Goldbach.  To Mr. Leahy." 
         23            And so by their manipulation of this 
         24   exhibit, they have simply blocked her ability and 
 0036
          1   tried to trick her and misrepresent to her what she 
          2   previously said. 
          3            So it's one thing to use these gadgets to 
          4   assist a witness in a court.  It's another to do it 
          5   with the deliberate attempt to misrepresent the 
          6   facts. 
          7            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I'm somewhat of a 
          8   quandary.  Isn't this her testimony?  This is 
          9   what --
         10            MR. EGBERT:  Judge, you can't cover up -- 
         11   they cover up Lines 11, 12 and 13, where she 
         12   completes the answer. 
         13            MR. WARE:  The Judge has the testimony in 
         14   front of her, and in fact she read Line 11.  So I 
         15   don't see the hysteria here.
         16            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  The objection is 
         17   noted.
         18            MR. EGBERT:  We don't see any hysteria, 
         19   Your Honor.  I'm going to ask right now that this 
         20   exhibit that's up on the board to you, up on the 
         21   screen to you, be put on paper and made a part of 
         22   this record.  I want this as a part of the record in 
         23   this case.  I want exactly how it is shown, with the 
         24   question that was just asked.  That is my right. 
 0037
          1            MR. WARE:  I do not object, so long as all 
          2   of them are admitted as evidence, and we will offer 
          3   a CD with all of them on it.
          4            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I was just going to 
          5   say, that will be fine.  Absolutely.  Go ahead. 
          6            MR. WARE:  May I have just a moment, Your 
          7   Honor?
          8            MR. EGBERT:  And I'm going --
          9            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Mr. Ware, have you 
         10   been making a CD of this or do you already have it?
         11            MR. WARE:  Yes.  
         12            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Fine.  You can make 
         13   a copy and give it to --
         14            MR. EGBERT:  Thank you.  And I'm 
         15   instructing you, Judge Lopez, to use the 
         16   transcript --
         17            MR. WARE:  Your Honor, I object to 
         18   counsel's speech and instruction to a witness on the 
         19   stand.
         20            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Mr. Ware.  Mr. 
         21   Ware.  I can take a short recess and he can confer 
         22   with his client.
         23            MR. EGBERT:  I'll do it right now.
         24            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Let's do it right 
 0038
          1   now.  
          2            (Brief recess)
          3            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Are we still on 
          4   Page 109? 
          5            MR. WARE:  Yes, Your Honor. 
          6            All right.   Could you put Page 109 on the 
          7   screen, and would you please highlight a section of 
          8   Page 109.  
          9       BY MR. WARE:
         10       Q.   Judge, you understand that what's 
         11   highlighted on the screen is a section, and you have 
         12   before you the entire Page 109, do you? 
         13       A.   Yes. 
         14       Q.   And let me specifically, as I have with 
         15   every other question, ask you to look at Lines 10 to 
         16   14.
         17       A.   Yes. 
         18       Q.   If you want to look at any other lines on 
         19   the page, you are free to do so.  Are you clear? 
         20       A.   That's okay.
         21       Q.   Now, at Line 10 you respond to an 
         22   additional question.  "Question:  Did you also 
         23   encourage Ms. Goldbach to come to the defense of the 
         24   case and your sentencing?   "Answer:  I don't 
 0039
          1   recall.  I mean, you know, not explicitly.  I'm sure 
          2   by my feeling, you know, you can interpret -- it was 
          3   conversations.  I was feeling bad."  And you go on; 
          4   is that right? 
          5       A.   Yes. 
          6       Q.   So whether or not you explicitly told Ms. 
          7   Goldbach that she should get out there and defend 
          8   this, you feel that you impliedly told her that by 
          9   your body language, by the context or by whatever 
         10   else; is that right? 
         11       A.   Well, she wasn't looking at me.  This was 
         12   on the phone, so she had no clue what my body 
         13   language was.  But I think that it could possibly be 
         14   construed as a possible, you know -- something that 
         15   she could possibly do after the conversation with 
         16   me.  I mean, that construction is not out of the 
         17   realm of possibilities.
         18       Q.   So you understood that whatever you said, 
         19   it may have encouraged her to go out front and 
         20   defend the sentence or defend you? 
         21       A.   Yes, it could have. 
         22       Q.   Now, you learned at some point that 
         23   Detective Greene, whom you called and with whom you 
         24   had some conversation, was not part of the 
 0040
          1   investigation of the Horton case; isn't that so? 
          2       A.   I knew that from the beginning.  What do 
          3   you mean I learned at some point that he wasn't 
          4   part -- you mean that he wrote the police reports?  
          5   I mean, involved in that way? 
          6       Q.   No.  He was not part of the investigation 
          7   of the case; isn't that correct?
          8            MR. EGBERT:  I have to object.  Mr. Ware 
          9   well knows that Detective Greene was not only a part 
         10   of the case; he was on the scene, and he took 
         11   statements from the alleged defendant, and it's in 
         12   the police reports.
         13            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Again, Mr. Egbert, 
         14   I'm in somewhat of a quandary.  This is 
         15   cross-examination.  You know, I'm --
         16            MR. EGBERT:  Cross-examination is one 
         17   thing, but it's another to assume facts in a 
         18   question which he knows to be false. 
         19            MR. WARE:  Well --
         20            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Overruled.  Let's 
         21   go.
         22            MR. WARE:  I'm not assuming any facts that 
         23   I know to be false, and I'm getting a little sick of 
         24   listening to Mr. Egbert' soliloquies.
 0041
          1            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Stricken.  Let's 
          2   go.
          3       BY MR. WARE:
          4       Q.   In any event, Judge, you knew that 
          5   Detective Greene was not part of the investigation 
          6   of the Horton case; isn't that so? 
          7       A.   Okay.  So long as that's clear that I knew 
          8   he had been on the scene, but he wasn't formally 
          9   charged with the obligation of doing the 
         10   interviewing, preparing the police reports, doing 
         11   the follow-up.  I knew that he was not one of those 
         12   police officers. 
         13       Q.   All right.  Well, I don't want to split 
         14   hairs here.  Detective Greene told you, did he not, 
         15   that he was not part of the investigation of the 
         16   Horton matter?  Yes or no.
         17       A.   He never represented to me that he was, but 
         18   he never said --
         19       Q.   Judge, did Detective Greene tell you --
         20       A.   I don't recall.
         21       Q.   -- that he was not part of the 
         22   investigation of the Horton matter?  Yes or no.
         23       A.   No, I don't recall. 
         24       Q.   Take a look at your sworn testimony 13 
 0042
          1   months ago when you did recall, and specifically at 
          2   Page 49, beginning at Line 5, which is on the 
          3   monitor, if you want to use it.  It is also in the 
          4   transcript at Exhibit 32.  Do you have it before 
          5   you? 
          6       A.   (Reviewing document)
          7       Q.   At Line 5, "Question:  Did Detective Greene 
          8   indicate to you that he was not part of the 
          9   investigation of the Horton matter?  Answer:  Yes.  
         10   He said the sexual assault team was called in.  They 
         11   took over."  
         12            Do you see that?  Is that what you 
         13   testified to?
         14       A.   That's what I did testify to, and that's my 
         15   understanding.
         16       Q.   Now, the first time you ever heard anything 
         17   about Detective Greene being first on scene was well 
         18   after the plea; is that correct?
         19       A.   Absolutely not. 
         20       Q.   Let me direct your attention, Judge, to 
         21   Page 49 of your sworn testimony of more than a year 
         22   ago, at the bottom of the page, beginning at Line 
         23   22:  "Question:  You were operating on the 
         24   assumption that Detective Greene was first on scene?  
 0043
          1   Answer:  I was.  Well, I was once he told me that.  
          2   But this is days after the plea, okay."  
          3            Isn't that what you testified to, Judge?
          4       A.   My problem --
          5       Q.   Is that what you testified to?
          6       A.   That's taken out of context.
          7       Q.   Pardon me?
          8       A.   It's out of context. 
          9       Q.   All right.  Let's just establish whether or 
         10   not these are the words you said when sworn to tell 
         11   the truth under oath before Commission counsel 13 
         12   months ago.  Is this the testimony you gave? 
         13       A.   "Days after the plea" deals with my 
         14   conversation with Mr. Greene.
         15       Q.   Judge, please.  Let me repeat my question, 
         16   in case it's unclear.  When you testified under oath 
         17   to the following question, "Question:  You were 
         18   operating on the assumption that Detective Greene 
         19   was first on scene?  Answer:  I was.  Well, I was 
         20   once he told me that.  But this is days after the 
         21   plea, okay" -- is that what you testified --
         22       A.   "Days after the plea" refers to my 
         23   conversation with Mr. Greene --
         24       Q.   Judge --
 0044
          1            MR. EGBERT:  Please --
          2       A.   I have to explain it, Mr. Ware.
          3            MR. WARE:  I would like a responsive 
          4   answer.
          5            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Please, again, 
          6   Judge, answer the question.  I'm pretty sure that 
          7   Mr. Egbert will elucidate it in the future.  Go 
          8   ahead.
          9       Q.   Is this the sworn testimony that --
         10       A.   The deposition says that.  That is what -- 
         11   that's the language on those lines on that page, 
         12   yes. 
         13       Q.   I'm not asking if that's the language on 
         14   those lines.  I'm asking you whether that is the 
         15   testimony you gave under oath 13 months ago, yes or 
         16   no.
         17       A.   Yes. 
         18       Q.   Whatever information you learned from 
         19   Detective Greene, you have discussed that 
         20   information on hundreds of occasions after the 
         21   sentencing; isn't that correct?
         22       A.   Correct. 
         23       Q.   And you've used Detective Greene in 
         24   conversations to tell people that a local police 
 0045
          1   officer agrees with your view; isn't that right? 
          2       A.   Yes.  To that effect I would say. 
          3       Q.   Now, is it your position, Judge, that 
          4   having accepted a plea to kidnapping, assault with 
          5   intent to rape a child under 16, that you as a Judge 
          6   are acting appropriately in going behind the scene 
          7   and talking to a Boston police detective and giving 
          8   that detective's name to the public information 
          9   office to get additional information not part of the 
         10   record? 
         11            MR. EGBERT:  I object. 
         12            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  What's the 
         13   objection?
         14            MR. EGBERT:  I object to the words "behind 
         15   the scenes."
         16       A.   It was all up front.
         17            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Again, I think 
         18   we're splitting hairs right now, "behind the 
         19   scenes."  I mean, Mr. Ware --
         20            MR. WARE:  I think the Judge has answered 
         21   the question.  She says it was all up front. 
         22       Q.   Judge Lopez, are you telling me that your 
         23   conversations with Detective Greene were part of 
         24   some public record? 
 0046
          1       A.   No.  But the case was not pending, and it 
          2   was not an ex parte communication.
          3       Q.   You say it was all up front.  The district 
          4   attorney was never notified --
          5       A.   Up front --
          6       Q.   Judge, please.
          7       A.   You've misunderstood what I meant by that. 
          8            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  There is no 
          9   question before you.  Please. 
         10       Q.   You say it was all up front, your 
         11   conversations with Detective Greene. 
         12       A.   In response to "behind the scenes," yes. 
         13       Q.   Now, Judge, I will repeat my question.  Do 
         14   you think that a sitting Superior Court judge is 
         15   acting appropriately, having taken a plea to 
         16   kidnapping, assault with intent to rape a child 
         17   under 16, assault and battery with a dangerous 
         18   weapon, assault on a child under the age of 14, in 
         19   going behind the record in court and behind the 
         20   record identified to you or articulated to you at 
         21   the lobby conference to get additional information 
         22   to be used by the press or the public after the 
         23   sentence? 
         24            MR. EGBERT:  Please don't answer. 
 0047
          1            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  What is the 
          2   objection, Mr. Egbert? 
          3            MR. EGBERT:  My objection, Your Honor, is 
          4   that he's asking a hypothetical question and using 
          5   words in the hypothetical question "behind this," 
          6   "behind that," "behind this," and "behind that," 
          7   which there is simply no evidence of that.  And it 
          8   puts her in a position that she can't possibly 
          9   answer it with a yes-or-no answer.  And that's what 
         10   you're requiring her to do.  If you want to ask the 
         11   question hypothetically, then use the facts that 
         12   have been adduced in this hearing.
         13            MR. WARE:  There is nothing hypothetical 
         14   about the question. 
         15            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Again, Mr. Egbert, 
         16   she has been a judge for 14 years.  She understands 
         17   what the canons, what the rules are.  I mean, in a 
         18   sense if there is anybody -- and if it does break 
         19   down, which I don't see it as a hypothetical, but if 
         20   it does break down to an expert, there could be no 
         21   greater expert than the Judge.  Overruled. 
         22            MR. EGBERT:  Can we ask, "Do you think it's 
         23   appropriate if the Judge jumps off a cliff?"  There 
         24   is no evidence of that in this case.
 0048
          1            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Overruled.
          2            MR. WARE:  I don't plan to ask that.
          3            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Mr. Ware.  
          4            MR. WARE:  You can --
          5            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Mr. Ware.  Let's 
          6   not get into a dialogue.  You may have the question. 
          7            Do you want it played back to you? 
          8            MR. WARE:  No.  I think I can ask it again. 
          9       BY MR. WARE:
         10       Q.   Let me get another fact out here, Judge.  
         11   At no time did you ever tell the District Attorney's 
         12   office that you were in communication either with 
         13   defense counsel or with CPCS or a Boston police 
         14   detective; isn't that correct?
         15       A.   That's correct. 
         16       Q.   You never made that information known to 
         17   the lawyer for the public, the assistant district 
         18   attorney; isn't that right?
         19       A.   That's correct. 
         20       Q.   And let me ask you again, Judge, is it your 
         21   testimony here today that you're promoting public 
         22   confidence in the judiciary by, following a sentence 
         23   in a case in which you accepted a plea of guilty to 
         24   these serious charges, that you're calling up a 
 0049
          1   Boston police detective to see what else he knows 
          2   about the case? 
          3       A.   In my mind and in my opinion, the case was 
          4   over once I imposed sentence, and -- it was over.  
          5   And I --
          6       Q.   Let's take your assumption that it was 
          7   over. 
          8       A.   Yes.
          9       Q.   Let's give you all the benefit of the doubt 
         10   on that.
         11            MR. EGBERT:  Objection.  Move to strike.
         12            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Stricken.  Let's 
         13   go. 
         14       Q.   Under any scenario, whether the case is 
         15   over or whether the case is pending, is it your 
         16   testimony here today that it's appropriate for a 
         17   Superior Court judge, having accepted these pleas of 
         18   guilty on the record, following sentence, following 
         19   disposition, to call up a Boston police detective to 
         20   seek additional information about the case that may 
         21   be used in the press? 
         22       A.   Under these unprecedented circumstances, I 
         23   would say it would be appropriate. 
         24       Q.   And in fact you're saying it was 
 0050
          1   appropriate, aren't you? 
          2       A.   I don't believe I did anything wrong by 
          3   having a conversation with Mr. Greene. 
          4       Q.   And you believe that, as part of the 
          5   standards to which we ought to hold a Superior Court 
          6   judge following a guilty plea, following a case in 
          7   which you accepted three pages of factual data from 
          8   the Assistant District Attorney, following a case in 
          9   which the defendant admits to having used a 
         10   screwdriver at the child's neck, that you are 
         11   entitled to go behind that record --
         12            MR. EGBERT:  Objection.
         13       Q.   -- and call a Boston police detective?
         14            MR. EGBERT:  The underlying facts of the 
         15   crime have nothing to do with whether or not it's 
         16   appropriate or not to speak after a plea and 
         17   sentencing.
         18            THE WITNESS:  Right.
         19            MR. WARE:  I'll rephrase the question.
         20            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Go ahead. 
         21       Q.   I don't want to retrace all our steps of 
         22   the last two days with respect to the facts that 
         23   were asserted by the assistant district attorney nor 
         24   those which you accepted and the defendant accepted 
 0051
          1   at that time. 
          2            I just do want to be clear, however, on 
          3   what standards you think a Superior Court judge 
          4   should be held to.  And you have told us here this 
          5   morning that you see nothing wrong with your having 
          6   either called defense counsel after this case was 
          7   subjected to disposition and sentencing, without the 
          8   knowledge of the district attorney, right? 
          9       A.   Correct. 
         10       Q.   And you see nothing wrong with your calling 
         11   up someone whom you believed to be a material 
         12   witness in the case --
         13       A.   I didn't believe that.
         14       Q.   -- and having a conversation with him.
         15       A.   I don't agree with that.  I never believed 
         16   Jay Greene was a material witness.  The case was 
         17   over.  There was not going to be a trial.  He was 
         18   not going to be a witness. 
         19       Q.   Let's put it this way, Judge:  You believed 
         20   he was, quote, first on scene, and have said so 
         21   repeatedly under oath; isn't that right? 
         22      *A.   I believe he had information that could 
         23   prove exculpatory.
         24       Q.   Try to answer my question.
 0052
          1            MR. EGBERT:  Objection.
          2       Q.   Try to answer my question.
          3            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  What's the 
          4   objection? 
          5            MR. EGBERT:  The objection is he 
          6   continually interrupts her.
          7            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Again, Mr. Egbert, 
          8   with all due respect, he's not getting a response to 
          9   his question.  Overruled. 
         10            MR. EGBERT:  I think he is getting it.
         11            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Overruled.  You may 
         12   have it.  
         13            MR. WARE:  Thank you, Your Honor.
         14            May I have just a moment, Your Honor?
         15            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Yes.
         16            Ms. Brunetti, if you want to sit at the 
         17   counsel's table, I have no problems with that.
         18            MR. WARE:  Thank you, Your Honor.  I would 
         19   like her to join us, if the Court is amenable.  Your 
         20   Honor, I don't believe I introduced Cheryl Brunetti 
         21   at the beginning of the case, but I'm happy to do so 
         22   now. 
         23            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Okay.  
         24            MR. WARE:  Could I have --
 0053
          1            MR. EGBERT:  You might want to invite the 
          2   rest of the firm up, too.
          3            MR. WARE:  Well, do you want --
          4            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Again, Mr. Egbert, 
          5   if you have anyone that you would like, a family 
          6   member or any counsel, to sit next to you, I would 
          7   be delighted.
          8            MR. EGBERT:  We're just fine where we are. 
          9            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Okay.  Let's go. 
         10            MR. WARE:  Your Honor, I would like to have 
         11   the witness's last answer read back.  
         12            *(Record read)
         13       BY MR. WARE:
         14       Q.   Your testimony is that you believe a Boston 
         15   police detective had information which might 
         16   constitute exculpatory evidence; is that what you 
         17   are telling us?
         18       A.   Based on what Anne Goldbach had told me at 
         19   the lobby conference, yes. 
         20       Q.   And so it follows from that, does it not, 
         21   that you accepted a plea of guilty to these charges 
         22   knowing that there was exculpatory evidence; is that 
         23   correct? 
         24       A.   I had a representation that there was a 
 0054
          1   failure to pursue exculpatory evidence and that 
          2   there were a number of disputed facts in the case, 
          3   yes. 
          4       Q.   And so with that knowledge you accepted the 
          5   pleas of guilty; isn't that correct? 
          6       A.   Correct.
          7       Q.   So there was nothing knew about the fact of 
          8   their being this, quote, exculpatory evidence that 
          9   you learned after you had sentenced the defendant; 
         10   isn't that correct? 
         11       A.   I don't understand your question, that 
         12   there is nothing new I learned. 
         13       Q.   You just told us that you were already told 
         14   by Ms. Goldbach that there was exculpatory evidence 
         15   regarding this case; isn't that so? 
         16       A.   Yes.
         17       Q.   And you were told that on August 1; is that 
         18   correct? 
         19       A.   That's correct.
         20       Q.   So on September 6th, six weeks later, or 
         21   five weeks later, when you sentenced the defendant 
         22   and accepted the pleas, you were well aware of this 
         23   assertion of exculpatory evidence, correct? 
         24       A.   Correct. 
 0055
          1       Q.   So you didn't learn anything new from 
          2   Detective Greene in terms of their being exculpatory 
          3   evidence; is that right? 
          4       A.   I learned one, I believe, what I consider a 
          5   new fact. 
          6       Q.   Well, you didn't learn anything which 
          7   caused you to say, "I shouldn't have accepted the 
          8   pleas of guilty"?
          9       A.   No.
         10       Q.   Let me repeat my question, because I don't 
         11   think we have had an answer to this question.  Is it 
         12   your view that it promotes public confidence in the 
         13   judiciary and is appropriate for a Superior Court 
         14   judge, following the criminal proceeding in which 
         15   there have been pleas of guilty, to contact 
         16   investigating officers or police officers to learn 
         17   additional information about the case because there 
         18   has been a firestorm in the press? 
         19       A.   Well, is it my view -- I need -- you have a 
         20   lot of assumptions in that question.  So I need 
         21   to -- could you repeat it?
         22       Q.   Let me try to be clearer. 
         23       A.   Yes.  There are a lot of assumptions. 
         24       Q.   Is it your testimony, Judge, that 
 0056
          1   consistent with the canons of judicial conduct, as 
          2   you understand them, that you were entitled, as a 
          3   Superior Court judge, following acceptance of pleas 
          4   of guilty and, therefore, convictions of a 
          5   defendant, to go beyond the record before you to 
          6   contact a Boston police officer for the purpose of 
          7   getting additional information in response to press 
          8   reports? 
          9       A.   I didn't know it was going to be used in 
         10   press reports. 
         11       Q.   Well, what was the reason you were 
         12   contacting Detective Greene?
         13       A.   I had gotten a beeper -- a call with a 
         14   beeper number.  I knew he had been the detective 
         15   that Anne Goldbach had referred to during the lobby 
         16   conference, and -- the other thing is, I remember 
         17   Jay Greene from my days as a district court judge. 
         18            So I knew Jay Greene, I knew his 
         19   reputation, and I wasn't -- you know, when he called 
         20   me -- the message that was left is, "Jay Greene 
         21   wants to talk to you."  You know, it could have been 
         22   he wants to commiserate with me, he thinks I'm 
         23   getting a bum rap on this.  He's a local cop on that 
         24   beat, and I called Jay Greene because he was not an 
 0057
          1   anonymous person to me. 
          2       Q.   And your testimony is, Judge, that you 
          3   didn't call him because of any press response; you 
          4   just called him as a friend?
          5       A.   I think he called me because of the press 
          6   response, and I returned the call. 
          7       Q.   I thought you told us repeatedly here that 
          8   Detective Greene was part of this case in some 
          9   fashion and had information regarding the case and 
         10   was first on scene; isn't that right? 
         11       A.   There is no case once I accept a plea of 
         12   guilty.
         13       Q.   So that gave you license, as you understand 
         14   it, and consistent with the standards you apply to 
         15   yourself as a Superior Court judge, to call any of 
         16   the Boston police for that matter and ask questions 
         17   about the case, because of a firestorm of protest, 
         18   correct? 
         19       A.   Mr. Ware, I am sure --
         20       Q.   Judge, please try to respond to my 
         21   question.  Does it give you license, following your 
         22   having accepted a guilty plea in this case or any 
         23   other case, to call a Boston policeman whom you 
         24   believe to have been somehow involved in the 
 0058
          1   investigation to elicit additional information on 
          2   the case from him in response to press reports?
          3       A.   I think it depends on what the purpose --
          4       Q.   Yes or no?
          5       A.   Depends on the purpose.
          6       Q.   You think you could have done that, and in 
          7   fact you did it here, right? 
          8       A.   Yes. 
          9       Q.   Now, Judge, at this point, following your 
         10   preparation for trial, appropriate preparation for 
         11   trial, you've read the testimony before the 
         12   Commission in its entirety, have you not? 
         13       A.   My testimony? 
         14       Q.   The testimony, the testimony of many of the 
         15   witnesses.
         16       A.   Yes. 
         17       Q.   And you have read the testimony under oath 
         18   of Detective Greene; isn't that correct?
         19       A.   Correct. 
         20       Q.   And you know --
         21            MR. EGBERT:  Objection. 
         22            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  What's the 
         23   objection? 
         24            MR. EGBERT:  Objection.  I want to be heard 
 0059
          1   at side bar. 
          2            (At side bar)
          3            MR. EGBERT:  This is the height of 
          4   unethical conduct, and I can't wait to send the 
          5   transcript to the BBO.  They know that Jay Greene 
          6   lied during his deposition.  Jay Greene has claimed 
          7   he had no phone calls with anybody. 
          8            Now they want to get her to say she read 
          9   his deposition which is a lie and is not in evidence 
         10   in this case.  They're going to take a statement of 
         11   a witness which is not in evidence, where they know 
         12   he lied, and ask this witness, "Did you read it?"  
         13   and "What did he say?" 
         14            It's preposterous.  It is back door in this 
         15   case, beyond the beyond.  And there is no -- not a 
         16   singular evidentiary basis for it.  What she read of 
         17   Jay Greene's testimony is irrelevant to these 
         18   proceedings.  
         19            MR. WARE:  Your Honor, at this point 
         20   Detective Greene's testimony is no different than 
         21   the police report, and I am entitled to get her 
         22   understanding of what he said.  And that's what I 
         23   intend to do, in a very limited way. 
         24            MS. DeJUNEAS:  They told Detective Greene 
 0060
          1   that they don't intend to call him as a witness 
          2   because he lied.
          3            MR. WARE:  I have never spoken to Detective 
          4   Greene since that deposition. 
          5            MS. DeJUNEAS:  You talked to him last week.  
          6            MR. EGBERT:  Greene lied in his deposition.  
          7   He say he never had any conversations with anybody, 
          8   even Joan Kenney, who is going to come in and say  
          9   they had a conversation. 
         10            They had him on the witness list, and they 
         11   called his attorney.  Then they said, "No, we're not 
         12   going to call him because we know he is lying."  Now 
         13   they want to put that lie into evidence through her.
         14            MR. WARE:  I'm not intending to elicit 
         15   anything about his lie. 
         16            MR. EGBERT:  What are you going to ask?
         17            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  What's the 
         18   question?
         19            MR. WARE:  I'm not going to announce my 
         20   question.
         21            MR. EGBERT:  Well --
         22            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I'm going to 
         23   sustain the objection.
         24            (End of side bar)
 0061
          1            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  At this particular 
          2   point we're going to have a little change of clerks.  
          3   Harvey is giving a lecture on landlord/tenant law in 
          4   Worcester.  Mr. Laurence Pierce, a very eminent 
          5   assistant clerk, is going to substitute for Mr. 
          6   Chopp. 
          7            We can proceed. 
          8            MR. WARE:  Thank you, Your Honor. 
          9       BY MR. WARE:
         10       Q.   Whatever information you got from Detective 
         11   Greene, one of the things you did --
         12            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I just want to make 
         13   sure it is on the record, your objection is 
         14   sustained for the record.   
         15       Q.   One of the things you did is call the 
         16   Office of Public Information of the Supreme Judicial 
         17   Court and ask Joan Kenney to call Detective Greene; 
         18   isn't that correct? 
         19       A.   Yes.  I don't know if I spoke to her 
         20   directly, but I know I called and left a message for 
         21   her with the beeper number I had, yes. 
         22       Q.   And it was your intention in doing so that 
         23   she contact Detective Greene to obtain some 
         24   information; isn't that so?
 0062
          1       A.   Correct. 
          2       Q.   Information which you believed might be 
          3   helpful in dealing with the press and deflecting 
          4   criticism of the sentence or the process or you, 
          5   correct? 
          6       A.   Correct. 
          7       Q.   You indicated yesterday that at this point 
          8   you have read, you believe, all of the complaints 
          9   before the Commission; is that so? 
         10       A.   I think so. 
         11       Q.   And you believe that some of those 
         12   complaints may be fictitious, correct? 
         13       A.   Correct. 
         14       Q.   And let me ask you briefly to look at Page 
         15   159 of your testimony before the Commission, and I 
         16   ask that that be put on the screen.  And you can 
         17   look at the whole page, if you are confused, or you 
         18   can look at the highlighted portion, or you can look 
         19   at anything you want. 
         20            Specifically at Lines 15 -- beginning at 
         21   Line 13  "Question:  Are there any other 
         22   complaints" -- you had been talking about one 
         23   particular complaint; isn't that so? 
         24       A.   That's correct. 
 0063
          1       Q.   And here you were asked the following 
          2   question:  "Are there any other complaints which you 
          3   deem or suspect as being fictitious or problematic?  
          4   Answer:  I have a real question about a number of 
          5   the complaints, yes."  Isn't that so? 
          6       A.   Yes. 
          7       Q.   And your suspicion, according to your 
          8   testimony at that time, was that this may have 
          9   something to do with individuals involved in the 
         10   Demoulas case; isn't that right?
         11       A.   Amongst others, yes. 
         12       Q.   Are there other individuals who may have 
         13   filed fictitious complaints, in your view?
         14       A.   More that 50 percent of the people that 
         15   appear before a judge go away mad, Mr. Ware. 
         16       Q.   So it's your feeling, Judge, that you have 
         17   enemies out there, not just from the Demoulas case, 
         18   but others who may have filed fictitious complaints?
         19       A.   I wouldn't say enemies, but people who may 
         20   not be happy with certain decisions I have made.  
         21   But the Demoulas case is certainly the biggest case 
         22   that I have dealt with.  I'm sure there are 
         23   individuals that I have made rulings on cases about 
         24   who are not happy with me. 
 0064
          1       Q.   And is it your view, Judge, that this whole 
          2   investigation arises out of something your enemies 
          3   are doing or fictitious complaints?
          4       A.   I believe it is all about my sentence.
          5       Q.   You don't think it has anything to do with 
          6   fictitious complaints or Demoulas.  You think it's 
          7   your sentence; is that right?
          8       A.   No, no -- I don't understand your question.  
          9   Do I think there are some illegitimate complaints 
         10   amongst those?  I do believe that, yes. 
         11       Q.   Which ones are they?
         12       A.   I am not sure I can identify particular 
         13   complaints; but given my experience in the last few 
         14   years, where numerous false, bogus, illegitimate 
         15   complaints have been filed against me -- and in fact 
         16   one was filed before the Commission, and they know 
         17   that there was a complaint that was falsely filed 
         18   against me before them. 
         19       Q.   All right.  So the Commission knows that 
         20   because they investigated it and found it to be 
         21   false?
         22       A.   Because the lawyer withdrew it. 
         23       Q.   Just if you would, I don't want to get all 
         24   that through that problem --
 0065
          1            MR. EGBERT:  Let --
          2            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I want to hear it.  
          3   You asked it and this is the response.  Go ahead.
          4       A.   What was the question?  I forget. 
          5            Basically the reason it was disposed of is, 
          6   the lawyer that was in fact representing the affiant 
          7   in that false affidavit found out about it and 
          8   withdrew it, sent a letter to the Commission saying 
          9   this was falsely -- to the effect -- I mean, not 
         10   exactly these words, but it was falsely procured and 
         11   contained false information. 
         12       Q.   And so that matter never came to 
         13   investigation, certainly never came to charges, and 
         14   certainly did not result in a hearing; isn't this 
         15   correct? 
         16       A.   That's correct.
         17       Q.   And you know that during the last two 
         18   years, you've had the opportunity to investigate any 
         19   of these complaints or take depositions of these 
         20   witnesses or do anything else you wanted to do 
         21   through your counsel to determine the validity of 
         22   these complaints?
         23       A.   I'm here because I investigated one on my 
         24   own. 
 0066
          1       Q.   Can you respond to my question.  You 
          2   understand that you and your legal team have had two 
          3   years to investigate any of these complaints, talk 
          4   with the complainants, take their sworn testimony, 
          5   to determine whether or not they were valid 
          6   complaints; isn't that correct?  Yes or no.
          7       A.   We certainly have had that opportunity, 
          8   yes.
          9       Q.   You have had that opportunity?
         10       A.   If we wanted to depose them, bring them in, 
         11   ask them questions.  But they all were generally 
         12   about the same thing, the demeanor and the sentence, 
         13   so...
         14       Q.   So you chose, as a matter of election or 
         15   strategy or whatever, not to take pretrial or 
         16   prehearing testimony from those witnesses; is that 
         17   correct? 
         18       A.   I guess.  I mean, no specific decision was 
         19   made, but we didn't choose to do that. 
         20       Q.   Now, Judge, one of the complaining 
         21   witnesses here is a woman named Beaucage; is that 
         22   correct?
         23       A.   Correct.
         24       Q.   And directing your attention to Exhibit 31, 
 0067
          1   that is the complaint or complaints filed by Ms. 
          2   Beaucage; is that correct? 
          3       A.   Correct. 
          4       Q.   Exhibit 31 consists of two separate 
          5   complaints; is that correct? 
          6       A.   I did not receive them together. 
          7       Q.   No, but it consists of two complaints; you 
          8   understand that?
          9       A.   Yes. 
         10       Q.   The first two pages of Exhibit 31 
         11   represent, let's say, the older of those complaints, 
         12   which bears a date stamp of October 20 in the upper 
         13   right, correct? 
         14       A.   Yes. 
         15       Q.   Has a date October 20, 2000; is that 
         16   accurate?
         17       A.   That's the date on this, yes.
         18       Q.   And the second complaint consists of a 
         19   one-page letter which is dated with the same kind of 
         20   date stamp, January 23, 2001; is that correct?
         21       A.   Correct. 
         22       Q.   When you received a copy of this complaint, 
         23   you received it from the Commission itself; isn't 
         24   that so? 
 0068
          1       A.   Yes.  It was a single complaint.
          2            MR. EGBERT:  Excuse me, Your Honor.
          3            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  What's the 
          4   objection?
          5            MR. EGBERT:  Your Honor, these are not in 
          6   evidence.
          7            MR. WARE:  They are in evidence. 
          8            MR. EGBERT:  These are not in evidence.
          9            MR. WARE:  They are in evidence.  They were 
         10   admitted today as among the complaints, Your Honor. 
         11            MR. EGBERT:  Exhibit 31 was not admitted.
         12            MR. WARE:  Yes, it was.  It was admitted 
         13   today.
         14            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  It was admitted.  I 
         15   have it in.  Exhibit 31, complaints by Angela 
         16   Beaucage.
         17            MR. EGBERT:  It is in, Your Honor, not for 
         18   the truth of this matter asserted as alleged by the 
         19   Commission.  And I would urge the Court to not 
         20   permit any examination on those matters. 
         21            And I would add, so the record is clear, 
         22   Ms. Beaucage, as you know, who was being deposed by 
         23   us, left the deposition and never returned, and is 
         24   scheduled again to be deposed on Thursday.  Whether 
 0069
          1   or not she ever shows up is a matter of speculation, 
          2   I suppose. 
          3            In the event that she does not show up for 
          4   the deposition, I reserve my right to move to strike 
          5   Exhibit 31. 
          6            MR. WARE:  Your Honor, whether or not this 
          7   woman is a witness has nothing to do with the 
          8   Commission's charge that it was improper for the 
          9   Judge to be calling individuals who filed complaints 
         10   during a pending investigation when represented by 
         11   counsel.  That's fundamentally the issue.
         12            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  That's the limited 
         13   purpose that you are asking?
         14            MR. WARE:  Yes.  That is what this issue is 
         15   all about.  That's what these complaints are all 
         16   about.
         17            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Not for the 
         18   truthfulness of it.
         19            MR. EGBERT:  The allegation in the 
         20   Commission's filing and the formal charges is that 
         21   Judge Lopez called Ms. Beaucage and she was 
         22   intimidated, and words to that effect.  But there is 
         23   nothing in evidence, nor could there be in evidence 
         24   in this case, unless Ms. Beaucage takes the witness 
 0070
          1   stand in that regard.  So that's the purpose of my 
          2   objection. 
          3            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  For the purpose -- 
          4   for the limited purpose that Mr. Ware intends to 
          5   interrogate Judge Lopez, your objection is 
          6   overruled.  Go ahead. 
          7       BY MR. WARE: 
          8       Q.   In any event, you called this particular 
          9   witness, did you not?
         10       A.   I called a number on this complaint 
         11   purporting to belong to this person, yes. 
         12       Q.   And you made that call on November 1st, 
         13   shortly after 11:00 p.m.; is that correct? 
         14       A.   I think it was like 11:02 or 11:03, yes. 
         15       Q.   And you made the call from your home, 
         16   correct?
         17       A.   From my home. 
         18       Q.   You made that call at a time when you knew 
         19   the investigation was pending; isn't that correct?
         20       A.   Yes. 
         21       Q.   The investigation had begun, as you 
         22   understood it, in September 2000, correct? 
         23       A.   Correct. 
         24       Q.   At that time you were represented by 
 0071
          1   competent counsel, were you not?
          2       A.   Yes, I was. 
          3       Q.   And you knew that if you had any questions 
          4   about any complaint, you had a number of options 
          5   short of calling a complaining witness yourself; 
          6   isn't that correct? 
          7       A.   If I had thought about it that way, I would 
          8   agree with you, yes. 
          9       Q.   Thinking about it now, you understand that 
         10   obviously you could have gone to Mr. Mone, your 
         11   counsel, and raised any questions you had with him 
         12   and let him do the investigating; isn't that right? 
         13       A.   Correct.
         14       Q.   You could have also opened the phone book 
         15   to determine whether or not this particular 
         16   individual was listed; isn't that true? 
         17       A.   No.  I don't have a Tewksbury -- I think 
         18   she's from Tewksbury or Billerica.  I live in 
         19   Newton.  So I would not --
         20       Q.   Do you have a computer?
         21       A.   Yes, but I have never done that, searched 
         22   for people's phone numbers on a computer, or 
         23   address.  So...
         24       Q.   So you could not, through your office or at 
 0072
          1   home, through one of your children, who is perhaps 
          2   more literate, at least if it's like my house, than 
          3   you are on the computer had someone look up a phone 
          4   number?
          5       A.   I suppose I could have, yes.
          6       Q.   Those options were available to you, right? 
          7       A.   Yes. 
          8       Q.   You did not avail yourself of those 
          9   options, correct? 
         10       A.   No, I did not. 
         11       Q.   You did not call the Commission or 
         12   Commission's counsel and ask them whether they would 
         13   a take a look at this particular complaint, because 
         14   you had some doubt about it; is that right?  You did 
         15   not do that? 
         16       A.   I did not do that.
         17       Q.   You did not ask your lawyer to call the 
         18   Commission to determine whether or not this 
         19   complaint or any other complaint might have some 
         20   characteristic to it that made it inauthentic? 
         21       A.   I believe I told my lawyer about this call, 
         22   either the following day or shortly thereafter.
         23       Q.   You told him --
         24       A.   -- I had made this call to verify the 
 0073
          1   legitimacy of this complaint, yes.  I don't think a 
          2   decision was made to look further into it. 
          3       Q.   Now, you're aware now, are you not, that 
          4   this particular complaining witness happened to have 
          5   caller ID; isn't that so? 
          6       A.   That's correct.
          7       Q.   And when you called the witness that night, 
          8   you didn't know that, did you?
          9       A.   No, I didn't. 
         10       Q.   It was, from your point of view, an 
         11   anonymous phone call; isn't that right?
         12       A.   Correct. 
         13       Q.   Which is to say, when you reached someone 
         14   on the other end of the line, you didn't tell them 
         15   who you were, did you?
         16       A.   I never identified myself to her, no. 
         17       Q.   And so in this call, which occurred, you 
         18   say, at 11:03, and you reached a woman on the other 
         19   end of the phone, you didn't introduce yourself or 
         20   in any way give that individual any indication who 
         21   was calling at that hour, did you? 
         22       A.   That's right. 
         23       Q.   If that witness had not had caller ID, no 
         24   one would have known about this call but you; isn't 
 0074
          1   that correct? 
          2       A.   Correct. 
          3       Q.   You believed at this period of time that 
          4   you were being persecuted in various ways by 
          5   powerful enemies through Demoulas or other channels; 
          6   is that correct?
          7       A.   I believe it to this day. 
          8       Q.   And that's what gives rise to your 
          9   suggestion here today that some of these complaints 
         10   that were not investigated may yet be fictitious; is 
         11   that so?
         12       A.   Correct.
         13       Q.   So your testimony is that even here today, 
         14   notwithstanding all that surrounds us and the 
         15   distinguished court who is spending his time 
         16   listening to this, you are not even satisfied that 
         17   these complaints are real as we sit here today, 
         18   right? 
         19       A.   I am not satisfied they're real, correct.
         20       Q.   You think all of this may be inspired by 
         21   your enemies, correct? 
         22       A.   Some of it.  I'm not saying all of it.  I'm 
         23   sure there are some legitimate citizens who saw the 
         24   tape and got upset about it.  But I believe that 
 0075
          1   there are a number of complaints and a number of 
          2   the -- a lot of the press frenzy, some of it was 
          3   motivated, inspired, which is the word you like to 
          4   use, by my enemies, yes. 
          5       Q.   And you believe that even as you sit here 
          6   testifying today, correct?
          7       A.   Correct. 
          8       Q.   And you believe that indeed you are the 
          9   victim here, don't you? 
         10       A.   With regards to these proceedings? 
         11       Q.   Yes.
         12       A.   Yes, I do.
         13       Q.   You're the victim, correct?
         14       A.   Yes, I do. 
         15            MR. WARE:  I have nothing further.  Thank 
         16   you, Your Honor.
         17                     CROSS EXAMINATION
         18       BY MR. EGBERT:
         19       Q.   Let's start where you left off.
         20            MR. WARE:  Your Honor, could we take the 
         21   morning break at this point?
         22            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Is that okay?
         23            MR. EGBERT:  No.  It's not okay with me.  
         24   If that's what you want, fine.
 0076
          1            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  If is not okay with 
          2   you, fine.  We can go another 25 or 30 minutes or 
          3   so.  Go ahead. 
          4       BY MR. EGBERT: 
          5       Q.   You left off by talking about the impact 
          6   some important enemies have had upon you, right?
          7       A.   Correct. 
          8       Q.   For those who don't know, let's talk about 
          9   the Demoulas case.  First of all, what was the 
         10   Demoulas case about? 
         11       A.   The Demoulas case involved two trials that 
         12   I presided over.  They occurred in late 1994 and 
         13   then again at the beginning of 1995.  The first one 
         14   was a stock transfer, fraudulent stock transfer case 
         15   that was tried to a jury; and the allegations were, 
         16   from the plaintiffs who were the nephews of the 
         17   Defendant, that their stock had been fraudulently 
         18   transferred through a number of mechanisms.  That 
         19   was about a four-month trial.
         20       Q.   And that case involved a good deal amount 
         21   of money? 
         22       A.   It involved what I understand to be over a 
         23   billion dollars. 
         24       Q.   And were you subject to conduct by lawyers 
 0077
          1   and others after that proceeding and your findings 
          2   in that proceeding which you thought to be unusual? 
          3       A.   Yes. 
          4       Q.   Tell the Court, after all of these Demoulas 
          5   proceedings and during them, some of the things that 
          6   were done to you by lawyers for the losing side. 
          7       A.   Well, amongst the things that were done -- 
          8   I mean, they were responsible for that false 
          9   complaint that was filed with the Commission in the 
         10   Trios matter.  But they also obtained false 
         11   affidavits alleging that I had engaged in improper 
         12   social conduct with the lawyer -- the lead lawyer on 
         13   the winning side of the case.  And they had moved to 
         14   recuse me on that basis. 
         15            Then they perpetrated this unbelievable 
         16   ruse on the law clerk that was assigned to me during 
         17   the second trial, the derivative action, which was a 
         18   jury-waived trial.  It was tried to me.  But they 
         19   perpetrated an unbelievable ruse against my law 
         20   clerk, flying him out of state so that they could 
         21   tape him and not have to comply with our, you know, 
         22   both-party-consent laws in Massachusetts.  They 
         23   threatened him.  I mean, I'm sure the Judge might be 
         24   familiar that this is now in fact involved -- well, 
 0078
          1   it was a federal investigation.  There was a grand 
          2   jury convened.  They are now before the Board of Bar 
          3   Overseers.
          4       Q.   Let me stop you.  When you say they are now 
          5   before the Board of Bar Overseers, who is now before 
          6   the Board?
          7       A.   Richard Donahue, Gary Crossen and Kevin 
          8   Curry.
          9       Q.   And were these the lawyers related to the 
         10   losing side on the case that you presided over? 
         11       A.   Yes. 
         12       Q.   And are they charged with multiple counts 
         13   of interfering with the judicial process by bringing 
         14   your clerk to foreign countries and taping him? 
         15       A.   Yes, they are.
         16       Q.   By filing false affidavits with regard to 
         17   your clerk? 
         18       A.   Yes. 
         19       Q.   Were you informed that you had been 
         20   followed during some of those proceedings? 
         21       A.   That's correct.  I mean, they had done 
         22   things like illegally obtained financial records of 
         23   mine.
         24       Q.   Were you informed that your trash was gone 
 0079
          1   through by members of the losing side to look for, 
          2   quote, dirt on you? 
          3       A.   Correct.  And I had to have the State 
          4   Police come and search for bugs at my house and in 
          5   my lobbies. 
          6       Q.   How long -- we'll get into this in more 
          7   detail tomorrow or Friday, but how long was the, 
          8   quote, Demoulas process -- how long did it go on? 
          9       A.   Well, it actually began in the fall of 
         10   1994, and I believe the last decision affirming my 
         11   denial of a recusal motion based on the Paul Walsh 
         12   matter, the law clerk matter, was rendered in June 
         13   of 2000. 
         14       Q.   So June of 2000 was the last, at least as 
         15   far as you know, judicial action in the Demoulas 
         16   matter?
         17       A.   Yes.  I think the appellate process is over 
         18   in the cases.
         19       Q.   And in essence, were all of your findings 
         20   and rulings relating to who won and who lost and the 
         21   like affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court?
         22       A.   I was affirmed in everything.  There was a 
         23   remand concerning some tax calculations that had to 
         24   be redone, but on every legal issue and every 
 0080
          1   evidentiary issue I was affirmed.
          2       Q.   And on these motions to recuse, and for 
          3   those who may not know, that means to disqualify you 
          4   as a Judge because of bias; is that right?
          5       A.   That's correct.
          6       Q.   Were any of those motions granted by you? 
          7       A.   No, I denied them -- there were three 
          8   motions.  I denied them all.
          9       Q.   And were each of those affirmed -- your 
         10   decisions in that regard affirmed by the Supreme 
         11   Judicial Court?
         12       A.   Correct.  They were.
         13       Q.   And when you talk about these false 
         14   complaints at the Judicial Conduct Commission, and 
         15   you mentioned the Trios matter --
         16       A.   Correct.
         17       Q.   -- did it come to your attention that 
         18   affidavits and complaints were filed with the 
         19   Judicial Conduct Commission at the behest of the 
         20   Demoulas lawyers? 
         21       A.   Correct. 
         22       Q.   And that after a period of time, those 
         23   people who signed the affidavits and filed the 
         24   complaints through their attorneys came forward and 
 0081
          1   indicated that they were all false, that everything 
          2   that they had filed was a falsity, and they had done 
          3   so by trickery? 
          4       A.   Correct.
          5       Q.   With regard to the Demoulas lawyers?
          6       A.   That's right.
          7       Q.   And that each of those -- and each of those 
          8   complaints accused you of various forms of 
          9   impropriety? 
         10       A.   That's right.
         11       Q.   Both social and judicial? 
         12       A.   That's correct.
         13       Q.   And they were all thrown out at that time?
         14       A.   Yes, they were.
         15       Q.   How did you feel going through the process 
         16   of these lawyers during that period of time trying 
         17   to affect --
         18            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  What's your 
         19   objection?
         20            MR. WARE:  I was going to let him finish 
         21   his question.
         22            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Well, I can 
         23   anticipate.  What is your objection?
         24            MR. WARE:  To her feeling.  It's 
 0082
          1   irrelevant.
          2            MR. EGBERT:  Her state of mind coming into 
          3   these events I think is perfectly appropriate.
          4            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I think because of 
          5   the nature of the charges, I'm going to overrule 
          6   that objection.  You may have it.  You may continue 
          7   with it. 
          8       Q.   How did you feel -- how did you feel, going 
          9   through that period of time in the Demoulas case 
         10   with these lawyers conducting themselves in this 
         11   way, attacking you, filing false affidavits, filing 
         12   false affidavits with the Judicial Conduct 
         13   Commission, filing false affidavits in your court, 
         14   and doing the kinds of things that you just 
         15   described to us? 
         16            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  You already 
         17   objected to it, how she feels.
         18            MR. WARE:  Objection, Your Honor.  I was 
         19   just going to ask if we have a time frame here.  I'm 
         20   not clear at all what year we're talking about.
         21            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  You are entitled to 
         22   that.
         23       Q.   Take us through, Judge Lopez, take us 
         24   through basically as best you can the time from '97 
 0083
          1   through the year 2000. 
          2       A.   Regarding the motions for recusal and what 
          3   happened? 
          4       Q.   No.  Regarding your feelings concerning 
          5   what was going on. 
          6       A.   Well, I mean, I was very upset that my 
          7   professional reputation was being impugned that way.  
          8   I mean, I knew that what was being alleged in those 
          9   affidavits -- I knew that to be false. 
         10            I was very upset, and I was angry that 
         11   there would be such an effort, not only to attack me 
         12   personally, but to use those kinds of means to 
         13   undermine a decision that had been rendered in 
         14   accordance with our laws, fairly decided.  And I 
         15   thought it as an attempt on their part to disqualify 
         16   me in some way -- and in fact the SJC saw it that 
         17   way too -- to get me disqualified so they could get 
         18   a new trial on the cases, because they were unhappy 
         19   with the results in that case. 
         20            So they marshalled every force they could 
         21   to see what they could come up with to get me -- to 
         22   get a new Judge to retry the case.  And so I felt 
         23   attacked.  I felt besieged. 
         24            MR. EGBERT:  I want to take up one other 
 0084
          1   matter, and then if you want to take a break.
          2            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I don't have to 
          3   take a break.  If you're on a roll, go ahead.
          4            MR. EGBERT:  No, I'm not on a roll. I just 
          5   wanted to take up one other matter quickly, and then 
          6   we'll take a break.
          7       Q.   You were asked a bunch of questions this 
          8   morning about Jay Greene not being in the 
          9   investigation, Jay Greene not being a part of the 
         10   case against Horton, Jay Greene not being a person 
         11   who was on the scene, Jay Greene not being a part of 
         12   the investigation.  Do you remember all those 
         13   questions? 
         14       A.   Yes. 
         15       Q.   Would you turn -- do you have the exhibit 
         16   book in front of you?
         17       A.   I do.
         18       Q.   Let's not use any screens.  Let's use real 
         19   paper, all right? 
         20       A.   Okay.
         21       Q.   Turn to Exhibit 27, if you would.  Now, in 
         22   your years of experience in practice and as a Judge, 
         23   do you recognize what this document is? 
         24       A.   I've seen hundreds if not thousands of 
 0085
          1   them.
          2       Q.   What is it? 
          3       A.   It's a police report.  It's an incident 
          4   report.
          5       Q.   And an incident report -- this is the first 
          6   report, basically, of the police officers with 
          7   respect to a criminal conduct? 
          8       A.   Correct. 
          9       Q.   Now, I want you to turn to Page 2 at the 
         10   bottom, and start with -- I want you to go, on the 
         11   second line from the bottom, from the word "the." 
         12       A.   Yes.  "The VD63 unit."
         13       Q.   Would you read that out loud.
         14       A.   "The --" I think it is supposed to be "VS"; 
         15   I don't know what "VD" means -- "63 unit, Officer 
         16   Goldy was on scene."  I guess that's -- oh, that's a 
         17   badge.  "Sergeant Detective Downey, Sergeant Burns, 
         18   Detective Greene and McCarthy --" and I think those 
         19   are their badges. 
         20       Q.   Keep reading.
         21       A.   "-- were on scene."
         22       Q.   "Were on scene"?
         23       A.   Right.
         24       Q.   And now you also were asked if Detective 
 0086
          1   Greene had anything to do with the investigation of 
          2   this case.  Please read on from after on scene. 
          3       A.    "The Sexual Assault Unit was notified, the 
          4   V825, Detective Keeley, and V823, Detective 
          5   Hartgrove, continued the investigation." 
          6       Q.   Stop right there for a minute.  Does that, 
          7   in your understanding, lead you to believe that the 
          8   people who were on scene and listed were there 
          9   before the so-called sexual assault unit? 
         10       A.   Correct. 
         11       Q.   Now, keep reading, please. 
         12       A.   "Detective Hartgrove continued the 
         13   investigation.  Officers administered suspect's 
         14   Miranda rights at the scene.  Suspect denied any 
         15   involvement post-Miranda to Officers Sweeney and 
         16   Detective Greene." 
         17       Q.   So Detective Greene was on scene, according 
         18   to this report --
         19       A.   Correct.
         20       Q.   -- interviewed the Defendant, according to 
         21   the report? 
         22       A.   Correct. 
         23            MR. WARE:  Objection. 
         24            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  What is the 
 0087
          1   objection? 
          2            MR. WARE:  Gave Miranda rights.  That's 
          3   all.
          4            MR. EGBERT:  "Suspect denied any 
          5   involvement --"
          6            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Overruled.  You can 
          7   have it.
          8            MR. EGBERT:  "-- post Miranda."
          9            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Overruled.  You got 
         10   it. 
         11       Q.   Now, without regard to what your testimony 
         12   before the Commission may have been some year or so 
         13   after these events as to whether or not you 
         14   remembered him being on scene or not being on scene 
         15   or the like, having looked at this report, do you 
         16   now have a basis in your mind to determine whether 
         17   or not Detective Greene was on scene?
         18       A.   Yes. 
         19            MR. EGBERT:  Your Honor, would this be a 
         20   good time for a break?
         21            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Fine.
         22            (Recess)
         23            (Side bar off the record)
         24            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Pick it up.  
 0088
          1       BY MR. EGBERT: 
          2       Q.   Judge Lopez, just recently, on your direct 
          3   examination, you were asked whether or not you 
          4   thought of yourself as a victim in this matter.  Do 
          5   you recall that questioning?
          6       A.   Yes, I do.
          7       Q.   What do you mean by that? 
          8       A.   Well, what I meant by that, and what I mean 
          9   by that, is that I mean as to these proceedings.  I 
         10   certainly was not suggesting -- and I hope it was 
         11   not interpreted -- that I was equating myself to a 
         12   victim such as the victim in the Horton case or a 
         13   victim in any kind of a criminal matter. 
         14            When I said "victim," what I meant is that 
         15   in the course of these proceedings I have gone 
         16   before the Commission, I have apologized for my 
         17   demeanor issues, and I really believe that this 
         18   matter should have been resolved in the way that 
         19   most, if not the overwhelming majority, of 
         20   complaints before the Commission are resolved, given 
         21   the nature of the allegations, and that -- I mean, 
         22   this is -- I'm not trying to suggest that these are 
         23   not legitimate proceedings, but I do believe that 
         24   the Commission has, in my case, gone beyond what it 
 0089
          1   has done in other cases.  So in that sense I feel 
          2   victimized.
          3       Q.   And in that regard, have you ever had a 
          4   complaint before the Commission where there has been 
          5   any affirmative action or finding that you have done 
          6   anything in violation of any canons of the ethics?
          7       A.   No.
          8       Q.   Have you ever had any case before the 
          9   Commission go to an informal adjustment or private 
         10   admonition or the like? 
         11       A.   I have had no sanction possible, whether 
         12   it's private, confidential, public, from the 
         13   Commission in my entire career as a judge. 
         14       Q.   And also just a few moments ago you were 
         15   asked about your phone call to Ms. Beaucage.  Do you 
         16   recall that?
         17       A.   Yes. 
         18       Q.   And whether or not you were suspicious and 
         19   why you were suspicious at that particular time? 
         20       A.   Correct.
         21       Q.   The call you made to Ms. Beaucage was 
         22   around when? 
         23       A.   It was on November 1st.
         24       Q.   Of the year? 
 0090
          1       A.   2000. 
          2       Q.   Just before November 1st of the year 2000, 
          3   did you have an occasion to experience false and 
          4   fraudulent letter writing or complaints, so called?
          5       A.   Yes. 
          6       Q.   I'm going to -- and I'm going to hand up to 
          7   you, if I may -- 
          8            MR. EGBERT:  May I approach, Judge? 
          9            THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I can't believe I -- do 
         10   you know how tough it is?  I want to rule on the 
         11   objections myself. 
         12       Q.   I'm handing Respondent's Exhibits H and I, 
         13   which the Court has the originals, I believe.  And I 
         14   ask you, first of all, can you identify what these 
         15   are?
         16            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  What exhibits are 
         17   we dealing with? 
         18            MR. EGBERT:  H and I.  They won't be in the 
         19   book, Judge.  They will be in the exhibits we 
         20   submitted to you. 
         21            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  All right.  Go 
         22   ahead. 
         23       Q.   Let's start with H.  That's a letter dated 
         24   October 10th of 2000. 
 0091
          1       A.   Correct. 
          2       Q.   Do you recognize it?
          3       A.   Yes. 
          4       Q.   And what is it? 
          5       A.   It's a letter I received at the courthouse, 
          6   probably on October 13th or 14th. 
          7       Q.   Of 2000?
          8       A.   Of 2000, yes. 
          9       Q.   And could you read that letter into the 
         10   record, please. 
         11       A.   Okay.  It says, "To Maria.  We demand to 
         12   know what you are doing to" -- wait a minute -- 
         13   "what you are going to do to correct your ignorant 
         14   ruling on the child attacker, Ebony.  Are you so 
         15   politically correct that you do not see right from 
         16   wrong?  You and your husband have the moral value 
         17   and character of a common criminal, but that 
         18   probably is not even an insult to you, because you 
         19   are in bed with the criminals anyway.  You cannot 
         20   realize how much you are loathed in this state." 
         21       Q.   And who signed it? 
         22       A.   Somebody by the name of Patricia Steinborn. 
         23       Q.   Now, after --
         24            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  I have to interrupt 
 0092
          1   you.  I don't -- I have all of your suggested 
          2   exhibits, but I don't have H and I in the -- I'll 
          3   need a copy, please. 
          4            MR. EGBERT:  May I approach? 
          5            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  That will be fine. 
          6            MR. EGBERT:  I'll give you these. 
          7       Q.   Now, after receiving that -- did you 
          8   receive that at the Superior Court? 
          9       A.   Yes, I did. 
         10       Q.   And what -- did it come in an envelope?
         11       A.   It came in an envelope.
         12       Q.   With a return address? 
         13       A.   Correct.
         14       Q.   What did you do with that when you received 
         15   it? 
         16       A.   I received these together. 
         17       Q.   Let's start with this one. 
         18       A.   Okay.  What I did with it -- well, what 
         19   happened was, my court officer was in fact reading 
         20   my mail, because I was getting thousands and 
         21   thousands of letters excoriating me and threatening 
         22   me.  So he would -- by this time I was only getting 
         23   a few of them.  Anyway, I gave it to my court 
         24   officer for him to verify whether or not this was a 
 0093
          1   legitimate letter. 
          2       Q.   And what did you learn from your court 
          3   officer in that regard? 
          4       A.   I learned he called --
          5            MR. WARE:  Objection.  Hearsay, Your Honor.
          6            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  Sustained.
          7            MR. EGBERT:  It goes to her state of mind 
          8   at this period of time in her belief that there were 
          9   people writing false letters.  It does not go to 
         10   whether or not they're false, and --
         11            HEARING OFFICER DAHER:  That's under the 
         12   exception to the hearsay rule.  You may have it.
         13       A.   Excuse me.  The question was, what did 
         14   he --
         15       Q.   What did you learn from Mr. Hart?
         16       A.   From Mr. Hart, that he had called the 
         17   business that was -- the return address on the 
         18   envelope and inquired as to whether or not a 
         19   Patricia Steinborn worked there, and they said they 
         20   had never heard of a Patricia Steinborn. 
         21       Q.   And would you a look at Exhibit I, please. 
         22       A.   Yes. 
         23       Q.   And is that a letter that you also received 
         24   at or about the same time? 
 0094
          1       A.   Correct. 
          2       Q.   And was that in fact in the same envelope 
          3   as the previous exhibit? 
          4       A.   Not in the same envelope.  In a separate 
          5   envelope, but with the same return address. 
          6       Q.   And would you read that one. 
          7       A.   It says, "To Maria.  You are a disgrace to 
          8   Massachusetts.  There are so many people that are 
          9   disgusted with your work.  You have n