U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE REGINALD LINDSAY

On May 12, 1999, I was arrested for entering the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Clerk's Office, 11th Floor, Tip O'Neill Federal Building. On May 11, 1999, State Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Diane Kottmyer, at a May 11, 1999 hearing in the Suffolk Superior Court, on my malpractice case against Hanify & King and Trustee Stephen Grey, advised me to go to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Clerk's Office to get the "removed" bankruptcy docket number, so she (Judge Kottmyer) could rule on my removal objection.
On May 12, 1999, I went to the U.S. Bankruptcy Courthouse, and spoke to the U.S. Marshall there, and asked him for the docket number so I could tell Judge Kottmyer the docket number. The docket number was kept by Judge Kenner and was not available from the public computer, as I had called the Bankruptcy Clerk earlier to ask for the docket number, but the U.S. Bankruptcy Clerk had no record of the docket number. Judge Kenner kept the docket number in her chambers, because I only had ten days to respond to or challenge the removal to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court from State Court. By keeping the docket number secret, Judge Kenner kept and prevented me from lodging my challenge to the removal of my State Court filed malpractice action to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
The U.S. Marshall asked Judge Kenner's Clerk for the docket number, so I could peacefully leave the U.S. Bankruptcy Courthouse so I could file my papers objecting to the removal with Judge Kottmyer in Suffolk Superior Court.
The Clerk said Judge Kenner was busy and could not see the U.S. Marshall. The U.S. Marshall then demanded from Judge Kenner's Clerk to see Judge Kenner.
Judge Kenner then relented and allowed the U.S. Marshall to see her (Kenner). When the U.S. Marshall returned to the room where I was waiting, the U.S. Marshall placed me under arrest, pursuant to Judge Kenner's orders.
When my criminal trial, for violating Judge Kenner's order not to enter the U.S. Bankruptcy Court 11th floor, came to trial, I subpoenaed Judge Kenner. But U.S. District Court Judge Lindsay, overseeing the criminal trial, quashed the subpoena directed to Judge Kenner. Without Judge Kenner's testimony, I was denied a critical witness, and a fair trial, as only Judge Kenner knew what the U.S. Marshall said to Judge Kenner privately about my intentions for being at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on May 12, 1999. And that was solely to get the docket number of the removed malpractice case so I could satisfy Judge Kottmyer's inquiry and need to know the federal Bankruptcy Court docket number so she (Kottmyer) could rule upon my objections to the federal removal.
I went to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to get the docket number. I communicated that sole request to the U.S. Marshall.
The next thing I know is that the U.S. Marshall is arresting me.
At my federal criminal trial, the U.S. Marshall falsely testified that I walked into the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 11th floor, and announced that I wanted to be arrested. That testimony was false, as I made no such announcement.
Without Judge Kenner's testimony, to contradict what the U.S. Marshall said I said, I was convicted, and found guilty without the main witness, Judge Kenner.
For more information on my federal criminal case and appeal, click onto the home page, http://www.uscorruptjudges.com/, sub-button "Mourad Arrest."


Judge Reginald C. Lindsay, who presided on Mourad's criminal case.

A Press Release to All Local/National Media

Criminal Action No: 99-10200-RCL

FEDERAL JUDGE VIOLATES CITIZEN'S 1st
AMMENDMENT RIGHTS

Former Chief Federal Bankruptcy Judge Carol J. Kenner barred Mourad from the 11th floor of the Tip O' Neil Federal Building - ie. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court - for life without reason and without a hearing. Mourad who entered the Bankruptcy Clerk's Office months later was arrested by the U.S. Federal Marshal. Mourad now faces the possibility of both prison time and extensive probation. A businessman with no former criminal record, has been frivolously barred from a United States Federal Building with no explanation and no hearing. Mourad has been arrested and convicted for attempting to peacefully review the docket sheet of one of his cases.

Judge Kenner who cost Mourad his real estate development - worth in excess of $20 million dollars - has a strong bias to Middle Eastern Developers. She personally insisted that Mourad be arrested on May 12th, 1999 even though Mourad never posed any harm or disruption to the Court.

Mourad was arrested on May 12th, 1999 for entering the Bankruptcy Clerk's office in The Tip O'Neil Federal Building. Mourad who was representing himself pro-se in the bankruptcy proceeding before Judge Kenner, entered the building to check the Court docket as requested by Massachusetts State Court Judge Codmire on May 11, 2000 who was presiding on a separate but related matter. Judge Codmire was presiding over a $20 million dollar lawsuit filed by Alphonse Mourad against Appointed Bankruptcy Trustee - Stephen Grey. Upon entering the Tip O'Neil Building, Mourad was unaware that the Ban to enter the Bankruptcy Floor was still in effect.

Mourad who was found guilty by Judge Lindsey for violating the ban, is protesting this decision on the basis that is compromises his 1st Amendment Rights as a Citizen of the United States. After the Mourad is sentenced, he will appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For further information, refer to Federal Defender, J. Martin Richey's--MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL PURSUANT TO FED.R.CRIM.P. 29, and to Alphonse Mourad's--MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROL KENNER IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.

FEDERAL DEFENDER OFFICE
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 4
08 ATLANTIC AVENUE. 3X0 FLOOR
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210
TELEPHONE: 617-223-8061 (FAX) 617.223-8080

March 17, 2000

Denise Casper, AUSA
United States Attorney's Office
United States Courthouse
1 Courthouse Way
Boston, MA 02210

Re: United States v. Alphonse Mourad Criminal No. 99-1020Q-RCL______

Dear Attorney Casper:

On behalf of Mr. Mourad, and in connection with his telephone conversation with FBI Agent Ken Welsh in Washington on April 11, 1999, I would like to request the following. Could you please determine whether that conversation was recorded, and if so, whether the recording still exists. Further, could you determine whether Agent Welsh's telephone call to the marshals in Boston was recorded, and if so, whether the recording of that conversation still exists.

Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
J. Martin Richay, Assistant Federal Defender
JMR: js

U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney District of Massachusetts
United States Courthouse, Suite 9200
1 Courthouse Way
Boston, Massachusetts 02210

March 21, 2000

Martin Richey, Esq.
Federal Defender Office
408 Atlantic Avenue 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02210

Re: United States v. Alphonse Mourad, Criminal Action No. 99-10200-RCL

Dear Martin:

On March 17, 2000, you wrote to me on Mr. Mourad's behalf to request that I determine whether any conversation on April 11, 1999 between Mr. Mourad and F.B.I. Special Agent Ken Welsh was recorded and, if so, whether the recording still exists. (N.B. I believe that you may have meant to refer to May 11, 1999. The dates, however, do not affect the government's response to Mr. Mourad's request). You also asked me to determine whether any call from Special Agent Walsh to the U.S. Marshals' office in Boston was recorded and, if so, whether the recording of that conversation still exists.

The government declines to respond to this request for several reasons. First, as you know, Mr. Mourad was convicted in this *matter on February 11, 2000. The substantive elements of the charge against Mr. Mourad/ therefore, have been decided and the only remaining issue is sentencing. Second, none of the information sought by Mr. Mourad is relevant or material to any issue concerning Mr. Mourad's conviction or sentencing in this case.

Very truly yours,
DONALD K. STERN, United States Attorney

BY: DENISE JEFFERSON CASPER,
Assistant U.S. Attorney

AFFIDAVIT

I, J. Martin Richey, state that the following is accurate to the best of my knowledge and recollection:

1. During early March, 2000,1 spoke with Ken Welsh of the FBI office in Washington.

2. I called Mr. Welsh because Mr. Mourad had indicated to me that on the evening of May 11, 1999, prior to going to the bankruptcy court on May 12, 1999, he telephoned the FBI in Washington to (1) alert them that he needed to go to the bankruptcy court clerk's office, and (2) attempt to determine whether Judge Kenner's stay-away order was still in effect.

3. During my telephone conversation with Mr. Welsh, he told me the following: He remembers that he received a telephone call from Mr. Mourad, though he cannot recall the specific date. He recalls speaking with Mr. Mourad at some length. He cannot recall the specifics of the telephone conversation, but remembers that once the conversation was over, he was left with the impression that Mr. Mourad was going to go to the Eleventh Floor of the bankruptcy court. Mr. Welsh felt that the marshals should be alerted to Mr. Mourad's intentions, and he telephoned the marshals' office in Boston.

Signed under penalties of perjury.

J. Martin Richey / March 21, 2000

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss.
SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
SUCV99-1470

ALPHONSE MOURAD
Plaintiff
V.
HAROLD H. MURPHY, ET AL,
Defendants

TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS MOTION TO COMPEL

BEFORE: Justice Diane M. Kottymyer Suffolk Superior Courthouse Boston, Massachusetts Civil Session, Courtroom 227 Tuesday, May 11, 1999

NICOLE C. GAGNON, M.E., CVR
5 CHAPIN COURT MENDON, MASSACHUSETTS 01756
(508) 482-9879

APPEARANCES

ALPHONSE MOURAD,
125 West Street
Hyde Park, Massachusetts
(617) 361-2793
Pro Se Plaintiff,

ETHAN JEFFREY,
Attorney at Law
Hanify & King
One Federal Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
(617) 423-0400

Representing the Defendants, Harold Murphy, Donald Farrel and Hanify & King.

INDEX
WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS (No testimony given.)

EXHIBITS
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
(No exhibits offered.)

PROCEEDINGS

Tuesday, May 11. 1999

THE CLERK: Civil Action 99-1470 Alphonse Mourad versus Harold Murphy, Donald Farrell, Hanify & King, Stephen Gray. This is a motion to compel.

THE COURT: Would you just identify yourself, please?

MR. MOURAD: Yes. My name is Alphonse Mourad. I'm the plaintiff. Also, I'm pro se.

THE COURT: And you, sir?

MR. JEFFREY: Ethan Jeffrey, Your Honor, on behalf of Harold Murphy, Donald Farrell and Hanify & King.

THE COURT: All right. Now, there's a very limited matter before me which has to do with Mr. Mourad's motion that I compel you to permit him to enter on to the premises of Hanify & King to make service. He says that the receptionist at Hanify & King refused to accept service and that he has not been able to effectuate service for that reason. And what is Hanify & King's position on this?

MR. JEFFREY: Your Honor, we have two positions on this. As a procedural matter, this matter has been removed to the Federal Court. I have a copy of the Notice of Removal, which under the case law means that this Court, until or unless it's remanded, has no subject matter jurisdiction over this action any further. That's number one.

And number two is, it is my understanding, Your Honor, that a sheriff arrived and neither Mr. Murphy nor Mr. Farrell nor any representative of Hanify & King were available to accept service at the time. The receptionist is not authorized to accept service. The sheriff only appeared once. Hanify & King, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Farrell are willing to accept service, they just ask that service be properly performed.

THE COURT: Well, what does properly performed mean? Does the sheriff have to keep going back until one of them makes himself available in the reception area?

MR. JEFFREY: Well, one time I think, Your Honor, is insufficient as a reasonable attempt at service. I'm not entirely sure what time the sheriff arrived but I do know that Mr. Murphy and Mr. Farrell were not present nor was a representative who is authorized to accept service for Hanify & King present at the time.

And again, I will state at this point the matter has been removed. The proceeding is now pending in front of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts. I don't believe that the motion can be ruled on by this Court at this time in any case.

THE COURT: All right. I'm not sure what date this came across my desk. I know that my instructions were to schedule a hearing with notice to Hanify & King. When did you receive notice of the hearing?

MR. JEFFREY: Your Honor, I apologize, I don't know. I think -- My understanding in speaking to Mr. Murphy, who would have been here had he been available, unfortunately was that they received notice that the hearing actually was on today. They had initially understood that the hearing was not on I believe due to the fact that it had been removed.

THE COURT: All Hanify & King had to do was basically file something in this session notifying the Court as a courtesy that the case had been removed to Federal Court, and therefore that it was not necessary to hold a hearing this afternoon.

MR. JEFFREY: Your Honor, I appreciate that.

THE COURT: That would have been much appreciated.
Mr. Mourad, what I'm being told is that the case has been removed to Federal Court. That there is therefore no jurisdiction in this Court and that consequently your motion is effectively mooted at this time. And I take it you have evidence of the removal?

MR. JEFFREY: I do, Your Honor. I have a Notice of Removal that was filed with the Court on May 5th, which I can hand up to Your Honor if you'd like to see it.

THE COURT: It was filed with this Court?

MR. JEFFREY: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm sure it's on file then.
Do you understand, Mr. Mourad, the case apparently has been removed to Federal Court and the case will be docketed in Federal Court and you will proceed then to prosecute the case in Federal Court.

*MR. MOURAD: May I ask one question, Your Honor, maybe you can help me with. The case of bankruptcy, I just received an order from the appellate, from the Appeals Court, the
case is being dismissed on the bankruptcy. There's no case open. How could they transfer a
malpractice suit, which it is --

*THE COURT:As I understand it there's
a bankruptcy of one of the individuals named as a defendant; is that correct?

*MR. JEFFREY:No, Your Honor, it's a
bankruptcy that relates to -- One of the defendants was the bankruptcy trustee and is the
bankruptcy trustee,that's why tne matter Was removed. It relates to his actions as the bankruptcy trustee.

*THE COURT: It was removed to Federal
Court.

MR. JEFFREY: It's removed. And Your Honor, I do have a --

THE COURT: I'm going to have to tell
you, Mr. Mourad, that to the extent that you
need answers to any questions at this point,
you're going to have to go to the Federal Court to the clerk's office and inquire as to the status of the case there. It is no longer lending in this Court.

MR. MOURAD: One question. If they haven't been summoned, how could Hanify & King and the other parties be removed? They're not part of the case. I just spoke to the attorney before I came here, they said they're not a party to it anymore. They still belong here.

MR. JEFFREY: Mr. Gray removed the case, Your Honor. It's effective as to all defendants. If

Mr. Mourad would like to take some action to attempt to have the Court remand it to this Court, he can take that action in the Federal Court. The jurisdiction is with the Federal Court.

MR. MOURAD: This is a case of prejudice. I mean, I'm going there for another matter.

THE COURT: Mr. Mourad, I think it's outrageous that the Court and you were not notified of this prior to the hearing today. Obviously it's distressing that such a motion had to take up the time of the Court and that you had to be inconvenienced by coming here today. But it appears that --

MR. JEFFREY: I do apologize, Your Honor, but the Notice of Removal was filed and --

THE COURT: Yes, but every piece of paper that's filed in every case in Suffolk County does not come across the Court's desk. And even if it did, lining it up with a case in which a hearing has previously been scheduled would not automatically be done by the Court.

All Hanify & King had to do was either number one, notify the sheriff that it was prepared to accept service at someone at Hanify & King who was in a position to accept service would accept service in the first instance. And in the second instance, when Hanify & King received notice from the Court that I had scheduled this hearing and requested that they please send someone up here, that you notify the Court that the case had been removed.

MR. JEFFREY: I understand. Your Honor.

*THE COURT: You'll have to go to Federal Court and inquire of the clerk's office
as to the status there, Mr. Mourad. I don't have jurisdiction.

MR. MOURAD: So that means I can't serve them. I'm a hostage.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know if the gentleman who is here has authority to accept service from you.

MR. MOURAD: The sheriff told me they had to be there.

THE COURT: If he does not, I'm going to instruct him as an officer of the Court to obtain your address and notify you in writing as to the individual who will accept service on behalf of Hanify & King.

MR. MOURAD: I would appreciate that.

THE COURT: And as to a date and time
at which such service may be effected.

MR. MOURAD: I would appreciate some help, Your Honor, just to serve them.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. JEFFREY: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded.)

CERTIFICATE

I, Nicole C. Gagnon, Certified Verbatim Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages 1 -12 represent a true and accurate record of the proceedings held concerning the aforementioned matter before Justice Diane M. Kottmyer on May 11, 1999 to the best of my knowledge, skill and ability.

Nicole C. Gagnon, CVR, M.E.

PLEASE NOTE:
THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE SAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL AND/OR DIRECTION OF THE CERTIFYING REPORTER.

UNITED STATES DISRTICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Criminal Action: Nob99-10200-RCL

UNITED STATES
v.
ALPHONSE MOURAD Defendant PROSE

DEFENDANT ALPHONSE MOURAD'S MOTION REQUESTING AN ORDER DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS AND SERVICE WITHOUT COST TO THE DEFENDANT. THE DEFENDANT MOVES THIS COURT FOR AN ORDER ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE DEFENDANT IS INDIGENT BY THE COURT AND THEREFOR REQUESTS THAT SUBPOENAS BE ISSUED AND SERVED TO FEDERAL CHIEF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE CAROL J. KENNER, HER CLERK- MARY E. MURPHY, AND DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL, STEPHEN M. DONAHER.

Now comes defendant Alphonse Mourad, the defendant in this criminal action requests that subpoenas be issued and served to Federal Bankruptcy Judge Carol J. Kenner, 10 Causeway Street, 11th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts, her clerk - Mary E. Murphy, 10 Causeway Street, 11th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts, and Deputy U.S. Marshal, Stephen M. Donaher, United States Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts, on the grounds that they are key material witnesses which led to the defendant's arrest and present trial. All of the above mentioned are key witnesses as they were all present on May 12th, 1999 (the day of Mourad's arrest) and also played a critical role in the decision to have Mourad arrested. These subpoena's are required in order to obtain testimony at trial that will demonstrate the Defendant's innocence. As the defendant has been deemed indigent by the Court, Mourad requests that these subpoenas be served at no cost to the defendant.

January 31, 2000

Alphonnse Mourad, PRO SE
125 West Street,Hyde Park, MA 02136

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT
OF MASSACHUSETTS

Criminal No. 99-10200-RCL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.
ALPHONSE MOURAD ORDER

August 23, 1999

COHEN, M.J.

The above named defendant having been arraigned before this court on Monday, August 23, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. Any and all pretrial motions shall be filed, consistent with the Criminal Pretrial Order entered contemporaneously herewith, and on or before September 13, 1999;

2. Defendant's Motion Requesting this Court to Retract its Order Barrring Mourad from the 10 Causeway Street, Tip O'Neil Building, in that the Original Judge Kenner Order Barred Mourad from the 11th Floor of the Tip O'Neil Building, filed August 23, 1999, is denied. To the extent that the defendant is required to file matters with the Bankruptcy Court for the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, he is still entirely free to do so by mail.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Home

Contact Info

Docket Entries

Judge Kenner Recusal

Arrest in Detail

Disposition Hearing

Judgment First Circuit

Supreme Court Appeal