Tracey L. Russo Esq.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

Per Claude:

Q: Is a Massachusetts judge permitted to issue rulings based on an extra judicial investigation that is not disclosed to the parties and their counsel and deny them an opportunity to be heard or respond to the judge’s ruling?

A: No — as a general matter of law and judicial ethics, this isn’t permitted.
Due process principle: Parties are constitutionally entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court acts on facts affecting their rights. If a judge relies on information gathered outside the courtroom record — and never disclosed to the parties — that violates basic due process, because neither side can test, rebut, or respond to it.
Judicial ethics rules: Massachusetts, like most states, follows a version of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct. The relevant rule (Rule 2.9 in the Model Code, adopted with Massachusetts-specific numbering in the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct) generally prohibits:
•Ex parte communications about a pending matter
•A judge conducting their own independent investigation of facts in a case
•Considering evidence, reports, or information not made part of the record, without giving the parties notice and a chance to respond
If a judge learns something relevant outside the record, the standard requirement is to disclose it to all parties and give them an opportunity to respond — not to rule on it in silence.

I’m not licensed in MA but I am outraged.

@TurtleboyDaily @TheEmilySee @GrantSmithEllis

#KarenRead #

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@MarburyvVeryMad And request that the court document the tweet in question and who provided it to him even if under seal from counsel to preserve the issue for appeal.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@sweetpea9317 @MeganFoxWriter Same.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@KarenDagger @defense_diaries TB is technically not related to this singular case re the wrongful death claim.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@Suzybeau1 @DataDecoder11 Does operator “P” mean police? So they drove it on/off?

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

It’s such a basic ethical issue their lawyer knows. They may have signed a conflict waiver but I think the issues in this case involve non-waivable conflicts but these are all issues for their lawyer. The fact that three of them claim defamation after Auntie Bev allowed KR to pursue 3rd party culprit in trial 1 is a claim no civil lawyer should pursue.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@_nikki_wrongway @KyleSharkey8 @DoctorTurtleboy I’m with you on 1 and 2 — as to 3, that may have come from an affidavit from an atty attesting to service in support of his motion. I think I saw reference to a motion that had not appeared on the docket? If that did not come from an atty, this judge is dangerous to both sides.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@GrantSmithEllis @DreamFeedMedia In MA, even if they withdrew the motion would it remain on the docket?

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@DebSipos @BrotherCounsel Judges cannot undertake independent investigations, withhold the “evidence” from the parties, and take action without affording them an opportunity to be heard. This is star chamber level nonsense.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@MarburyvVeryMad Agree. No leak.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@Will428304 @FKR102445 I continue to be perplexed by Nan’s lawyering.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

I am begging the lawyers to submit affidavits and exhibits showing when they opened the email with the attachments. At this point, is this mysterious info still somewhere on X? I find it very, very hard to believe that no one saw it if it actually really existed. Best explanation I’ve seen so far is the motion posted by @GrantSmithEllis shouldn’t have been made public by the clerk’s office and/or the judge assumed the post included the impounded exhibits. Curious about how the lawyers handle this going forward— this judge is watching social media and making decisions based on that. Not good for either side.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@jlbcalhoun @LizInTheB 100% agree. That’s where I get lost— even if it’s the subject of the exhibits that doesn’t mean it wasn’t available and public through other means.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

Per Claude:

Q: Is a Massachusetts judge permitted to issue rulings based on an extra judicial investigation that is not disclosed to the parties and their counsel and deny them an opportunity to be heard or respond to the judge’s ruling?

A: No — as a general matter of law and judicial ethics, this isn’t permitted.
Due process principle: Parties are constitutionally entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court acts on facts affecting their rights. If a judge relies on information gathered outside the courtroom record — and never disclosed to the parties — that violates basic due process, because neither side can test, rebut, or respond to it.
Judicial ethics rules: Massachusetts, like most states, follows a version of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct. The relevant rule (Rule 2.9 in the Model Code, adopted with Massachusetts-specific numbering in the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct) generally prohibits:
•Ex parte communications about a pending matter
•A judge conducting their own independent investigation of facts in a case
•Considering evidence, reports, or information not made part of the record, without giving the parties notice and a chance to respond
If a judge learns something relevant outside the record, the standard requirement is to disclose it to all parties and give them an opportunity to respond — not to rule on it in silence.

I’m not licensed in MA but I am outraged.

@TurtleboyDaily @TheEmilySee @GrantSmithEllis

#KarenRead #

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@Djm4465Darryl @GlammaSooz @imnew_getoverit What a coincidence ….

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@SusanPlue @LizInTheB I was thinking it was TB but he made a point of saying someone “totally unrelated” (I think that’s how he worded it ). Given that TB is a witness and the subject of a pending motion to compel and is involved in the other related cases, I’m leaning toward Grant?

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@LizInTheB @jlbcalhoun I really hope so. I was expecting that he’d clear the courtroom and just have an “in chambers” conversation. Frankly, I don’t even know if his remarks are a ruling that they have standing to challenge or ask for an articulation.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@mauiswifter @imnew_getoverit Please tell us the full scope of what happened — as far as I can see one knows the full scope because the judge didn’t tell anyone what he saw or how he came to see this information. This is not normal. And I don’t need a YouTube channel to contribute to this conversation.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@GlammaSooz @imnew_getoverit 100%

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@imnew_getoverit Probably not — interlocutory appeals are very limited. I’ve been a trial lawyer for more than 25 years and I’ve never seen a judge do something like this. If I lived in MA I’d be livid. This has nothing to do with sides of this litigation. This is a denial of due process.

[Tracey L. Russo Esq. @EsqTracey]

@DoctorTurtleboy And now, to avoid your depo, just get someone to post something private. fFS.