LAST UPDATED 08/15/19
ALL LEGAL DOCUMENTS PERTAINING FOR THIS CASE ARE ON PUBLIC RECORD AT THE BOSTON FEDERAL COURT HOUSE AND THE INTERNET WORLD WIDE.
Website is updated daily please check back periodically.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
________________________
ALPHONSE MOURAD,
Plaintiff
BAP No. MB 99-100
Bankruptcy No. 96-10123-CJK
Adversary No.
99-1205
v.
SUMMARY OF AURGUMENT
HAROLD H. MURPHY AND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
DONALD F. FARRELL, JR. HANIFY & KING, P.C. (A Law Partnership)AND STEPHEN GRAY
Defendants
_________________________
Now comes the Plaintiff and Appellate, Alphonse Mourad, Pro Se, and seeks Relief from Judge Kenner's November 10, 1999 Order and Memorandum of Decision on Motion of Alphonse Mourad For Recusal and Remand, Motion of Stephen Gray to Dismiss, and Motion of Harold B. Murphy, Donald F. Farrell, Jr., and Hanify & King P.C. To Dismiss.
Judge Kenner had denied all counts of Mourad's Complain except for count 6 which has been remanded back to the Suffolk Superior Court. Mourad appeals to the Appellate Court and requests that all counts regarding all Defendants be remanded back to the Suffolk Superior Court. Or, if the Court finds it appropriate, Mourad requests that all counts concerning only Hanify & King, Harold H. Murphy, and Donald Farrell be remanded back to Suffolk Superior Court, and to remand all counts concerning only Stephen S. Gray to the Federal Court because he is a Federal Bankruptcy Trustee.
In Support, Mourad says as follows:
1. On March 31, 1999, Mourad timely filed a State Court legal malpractice and conspiracy lawsuit (See Exhibit "1") in the Suffolk Superior Court, Case No. 99-1470-C, against Harold Murphy, Donald Farrell, Hanify & King, and Stephen Gray.
2. Harold Murphy, Donald Farrell, and Hanify & King unjustly refused to accept service of the State Court Complaint served to them by the Suffolk County Deputy Sheriff, at their One Federal Street, Boston office. Deputy Sheriff Igo told Mourad "This is the first time any law firm or attorney has refused to accept service from me."
3. Mourad was forced to file an emergency motion entitled- MOURAD'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL THE SUFFOLK DEPUTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO 'SERVE' DEFENDANTS HAROLD MURPHY, DONALD FARRELL AND HANIFY & KING TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPUTY SHERIFF OR A DISINTERESTED PERSON TO ENTER UPON THE HANIFY & KING LAW OFFICES AT ONE FEDERAL STREET, BOSTON FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING MURPHY, FARRELL AND HANIFY & KING WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THE MATTER, see Exh. "2."
4. Judge Diane M. Kottymyer allowed Mourad's Motion, and Ordered the Defendants to appear on May 11, 1999, at 2:30 pm, at the Suffolk Courthouse, Room 227, to hear argument on said Motion.
5. At the hearing, Judge Kottymyer Ordered the Defendants to accept service. It wasn't until Judge Kottymyer ordered them to accept service that said parties complied.
6. Also, during the hearing, D. Ethan Jeffery, attorney for Hanify & King, Murphy and Farrell, told Judge Kottymyer that the case had been transferred to the Bankruptcy Court, and that she no longer had jurisdiction to hear the case. This was to Judge Kottymyer's surprise, see May 11, 1999 Transcript, attached as Exh. "3."
7. On May 5, 1999, Stephen Gray had caused the State Court action to be removed to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, claiming Mourad's lawsuit challenged Gray's actions as the Court-appointed Trustee, and therefore, it was appropriate to remove the case to this Bankruptcy Court.
8. Mourad disputes that position, and asks the Court to remand all counts back to the Suffolk Superior Court, as allowable under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 9027(d), on any equitable ground, or to at least remand all counts concerning only Hanify & King, Harold Murphy, and Donald Farrell.
9. Mourad says that the State law claims are best heard in State Court, and that the Suffolk Superior Court can hear such cases. In Palmer v. Murphy, 42 Mass App Ct. 334, 677 N.E. 2d 247 (1997), the Court allowed the joinder of the trustee in bankruptcy, Harold Murphy, a defendant here, to be added as a party to a State Court lawsuit.
10. The March 12, 1999 dismissal and closing of V&M Management, Inc.'s. bankruptcy case, No. 96-10123-CJK, is an equitable reason to remand this action.
11. On December 23, 1998, the Bankruptcy Court (Kenner, C.J.) granted Trustee Gray's Motion For Final Decree and ordered the V&M Management, Inc. Bankruptcy Case, No. 96-10123-CJK, to be closed upon the outcome of Mourad's appeal.
12. In her December 23, 1998 Memorandum of Decision on Amended Motion For Final Decree, the Court stated it would "overrule the objections and allow the motion, with final decree to enter upon resolution of (1) the matters presently under appeal and (2) the recently-decided matters as to which the appeal period has not lapsed. Except as to those matters, the case shall be deemed closed upon entry of the order allowing this motion." Judge Kenner goes on to say: "Aside from an appeal filed recently by Alphonse Mourad and one recently decided matter as to which the appeal period has not lapsed, this case is ready to be closed, and there is no impediment to entry of the final decree. Because of the pending appeals and unlapsed appeal period, this case must remain open as to those matters and those matters only. For all other purposes, however, the Court will close this case forthwith." Judge Kenner's December 23, 1998 Memorandum of Decision on Amended Motion For Final Decree is attached as Exhibit "4."
13. Mourad says that his appeal, BAP No. MB 98-104, in which the Bankruptcy Court had awaited the final outcome to close V&M Management's bankruptcy case, was dismissed on March 12, 1999. See March 12, 1999 Judgement, attached as Exhibit "5."
14. Accordingly, V&M Management's bankruptcy case, Case No. 96-10123-CJK, was closed on that day, March 12, 1999.
15. Mourad further says that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court has no or questionable jurisdiction to rule upon any matters regarding the State Court malpractice suit filed in the Suffolk Superior Court, and that the Bankruptcy Court should have remanded the State Court action back to the Suffolk Superior Court.
16. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court should not preside over a State Court malpractice lawsuit where the corporate V&M bankruptcy is no longer open, and where this State Court case was commenced by a non-bankrupt party, Alphonse Mourad, personally. The Chapter 11 debtor, V&M Management, Inc., is not a party to the State Court lawsuit.
17. Trustee Gray, in his May 26, 1999 Memorandum and Motion to Dismiss, is wrong to assert that "Mourad lacks standing to bring this action." Mourad can rightfully complain about a conspiracy plotted against him between Mourad's and V&M's attorneys and the Court-appointed Trustee.
18. Mourad says that he (not V&M Management, Inc.) filed the State Court malpractice suit personally, after V&M Management's bankruptcy case had been dismissed. Mourad has standing for his personal losses and irreparable harm caused by the actions of above mentioned Defendants to the State Court action.
19. Also, Mourad says he has standing, in that he can prove (at a jury trial through appraisals and commitment letters from banking institutions) that he (Mourad), as the sole shareholder and owner, had personal equity in V&M Management, and would have recovered his equity had he been given the fair opportunity to refinance and pay all of the creditors in full, which would have left Mourad with millions of dollars in profit, after 15 years of investment in V&M Management, Inc.
20. H&K Defendants argue that "Mourad had failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Mourad says that statement is completely false, and that he clearly stated a claim against the Defendant's in his original complaint. The following are the claims stated against Defendants Hanify & King, Harold Murphy and Donald Farrell in the first paragraph of the complaint:
"Alphonse Mourad complains against attorneys Harold H. Murphy and Donald E. Farrell, and the law firm/partnership of Hanify & King for professional malpractice, negligence, failure of representation, failure to appeal the Bankruptcy Court's April 1, 1996 appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee over V&M Management, Inc., breach of duty, breach of contract, fraud, excessive fee charging and conspiring, with Stephen Gray, the Court-appointed Chapter 11 Trustee, to deprive Mourad of his property and rights to have reorganized his solely owned subchapter S corporation, V&M Management, Inc. and come out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, free of its mortgaged corporate debts and the unfair, excessive urban G.L. c.121A excise tax. As a result of the (mis)representation, negligence, and breach of duties, and conspiracy with Stephen Gray, Mourad lost his and his family's fifteen year, multi-million dollar investment in V&M Management, Inc. which, after refinancing and having eliminated the restrictions of Section 8 housing, would have yielded him approximately $10 million in profit in the thriving 1990's real estate market.
21. In 1996, Stephen Gray claimed that the 276 unit, 5 1/2 acre development, was only worth between $100,000 and $500,000. Mourad was able to acquire a commitment letter from the Multi-Loan Network for $5.5 million dollars (Exh. "6") to refinance the development. Mourad asked Murphy, who was still the counsel of record for V&M and Mourad, to represent Mourad and to submit his bid for $5.5 million, which had been the only offer in the Bankruptcy Court at the time, and, to date, is still the largest amount of money offered to the creditors of the estate. . 22. Murphy refused to comply with Mourad. Also, Gray and Judge Kenner declined to accept Mourad's $5.5 million offer without explanation, and stalled for months giving Gray enough time to put together a reorganization plan of his own in conjunction with Beacon Residential Properties which only paid the creditors of the estate 9 cents on the dollar, as opposed to Mourad's plan which would have paid them 100% of the money owned to them. Please see Creditor Arthur H. Goldsmith's Motion to Dismiss attached as
Exh. " 7."
23. Further, bankruptcy attorney Leonard M. Krulewich gives his expert opinion and states in his March 2, 1998 Affidavit (See Exh. "8") that "It is quite inconceivable that the Debtor's counsel (Hanify & King) failed to make an appeal from the appointment of the Trustee. There were so many errors in the Court's findings based upon the objectionable evidence that, not only would the District Court have reversed the decision, but there would have been a possibility the District Court would have retained the case and revoked the transfer to the Bankruptcy Court,"
24. Also, H&K Defendant's argue that "As counsel to the Chapter 11 Debtor, the H&K Defendants owed a duty to the Debtor corporation and not to its individual officers or shareholders." The Court failed to take into account the fact that the Debtor, V&M Management, Inc. is a Sub Chapter S. corporation, in which standard Chapter 11 corporate debtor rules do not apply.
25. Mourad is the sole shareholder of V&M Management, Inc., and is personally responsible and liable for any debt the Sub Chapter S corporation accrues, and had to sign for all loans made to V&M Management personally. As the sole shareholder in this Sub Chapter S corporation, only Mourad can be subject to income, loss, deductions, or credits, and the filing of bankruptcy does not change this.
26. Because Mourad is personally liable for all loans made to V&M Management, he (Mourad) has suffered personal grievance as a result of Hanify & King's negligence and conspiracy with Stephen Gray.
27. Also, Mourad is personally responsible to pay V&M Management's income taxes for the profit V&M accrued in the amount $1.3 million, for the years 1996-1997, even though Mourad had not received any money from V&M Management, Inc. for those years, and had no control over V&M Management (Exh. "9"). For the years 1996-1997, Chapter 11 Trustee, Stephen S. Gray, had complete control over V&M Management, and kept the $1.3 million profit for himself.
28. As a result of the claims made against the Defendants' in the complaint, the taxes owed for the $1.3 million dollars in profit V&M Management amassed for the years 1996-1997 are to be paid by Mourad. This is just one example of the harm and grievance caused to Mourad personally, which gives him (Mourad) standing and the constitutional right to bring his complaint.
29. Further, Attorney Krulewich also goes on to say in his March 2, 1998 Affidavit (again see Exh. "8") "Counsel (Murphy) cannot argue that he did not represent Mr. Mourad because he had a conflict (as a result of representing V&M). He never disclosed to Mr. Mourad that he did not represent Mr. Mourad, nor did he recommend that Mourad retain independent counsel. Instead, he (Murphy) told Mourad not to file a proof of claim. As a result of not filing the claim, the Bankruptcy Court (as well as the District Court), determined that Mourad had no right to argue any motion in Court, again".
30. Hanify & King's representation of Mourad and V&M brought no benefit to the V&M estate, or its creditors. The Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on April 1, 1996 for hearing the BRA Motion for a trustee.
31. At the April 1, 1996 hearing in the Bankruptcy Court Harold Murphy failed to rebut or challenge Examiner Alan Braunstein's conclusion that Mourad took $923,000 in 1995, and failed to object to the Court's refusal to allow Examiner Braunstein to finish his investigation.
32. As a result of Murphy, Farrell's and Hanify & King's negligence and (mis)representation of V&M Management, and failure to obtain necessary discovery, the Bankruptcy Court made erroneous, unsupportable findings that Mourad had mismanaged V&M during the years of 1983 and 1984 when in fact, Mourad did not manage the property at that time. Abrams Management and State Street Management managed the property from 1982-1987 and were responsible for any losses accumulated during that time period. Murphy, Farrell, and Hanify & King failed to correct, or object to these findings, in that Mourad did not manage V&M during this 1983-1984 period of mismanagement, and the statue of limitations had expired for any inquiry into this period, much less judicial reliance to support a Trustee appointment.
33. The Court's finding that Mourad was guilty of gross mismanagement, and the Court's appointment of a Trustee, were appealable issues that Hanify & King had an obligation to appeal or secure other counsel to appeal. Mourad asked Murphy and Hanify & King to appeal the Bankruptcy Court's April 1, 1996 allowance of the Motion to appoint a chapter 11 Trustee. Murphy and Hanify & King refused to timely notice an appeal. Hanify & King failed to advise Mourad to retain new counsel to appeal. Counsel must take all reasonable steps to ensure that a client's rights are properly protected, and the proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal within ten days of the Court's April 1, 1996 order under Bankruptcy Rule 8002 was a required action to protect V&M's and Mourad's rights. Hanify & King refused to appeal because they did not want to offend Judge Kenner who appointed the firm and its partners to lucrative Trusteeships. Hanify & King should have filed the appeal (to timely protect V&M's rights), then sought permission to withdraw, and not done so until successor counsel was retained.
34. Hanify & King negligently refused to notice an appeal and failed to take all necessary and timely steps to protect Mourad's and V&M's rights, because the Court (Kenner, C.J.), on April 2, 1996, approved the U.S. Trustee's recommendation to appoint Stephen Gray as Chapter 11 Trustee. Murphy and Hanify & King had previously represented and continued to represent Stephen Gray in an ongoing bankruptcy case, In Re Patriot Paper Corp., Chapter 7, Case No. 93-12482-CJK, yet failed to disclose this representational connection to the U.S. Trustee, Mourad or the Court.
35. Murphy and Hanify and King refused to appeal Judge Kenner's appointment of Gray, a Chapter 11 Trustee, because Murphy and Hanify & King knew that a successful appeal would dislodge Gray from a lucrative trusteeship appointment.
36. Harold Murphy did not object to the Court's erroneous findings and conclusions, and failed to preserve Mourad's right to an appeal by not doing so. Also, after the Trustee was appointed, Murphy refused to file a Motion For Reconsideration to the appointment of a Trustee, as was requested by Mourad.
37. Attorneys Murphy and Farrell and Hanify & King committed professional negligence and failed to represent V&M Management zealously, in violation of DR 7-101(A)(1); failed to represent the client (V&M) within the bounds of the law, in violation of DR 7-102; failed to refute and dispute the factual and legal basis for the BRA Motion For the Appointment of a Trustee; failed to litigate the issues addressed in Mourad's Affidavit; failed to obtain discovery against the three moving governmental entities; failed to litigate the issues addressed in Ederland Duncan's February 29, 1996 Memorandum; failed to object to the introduction of stale (1983-1984) evidence at the April 1, 1996 hearing on the Motion to appoint a Trustee; and failed to object to Attorney Saul Schapiro's appearance, who had submitted an Affidavit, in support of the BRA Motion For the Appointment of a Trustee, and spoke on behalf of the three governmental moving parties as its lead counsel at the April 1, 1996 hearing while simultaneously testifying and representing the BRA in the same case. Here, BRA attorney Saul Schapiro breached this most basic of evidentiary and ethical rules (DR 5-101(B), DR 5-102). Schapiro should not have simultaneously represented the governmental entities while testifying, and Murphy negligently made no objection to Schapiro's appearance as a witness, as well as his tainting statements.
38. Rather than file the notice of appeal themselves as counsel to V&M, Murphy had Farrell draft a Notice of Appeal for Mourad to sign and file. Mourad was not advised that he, a non lawyer, could not sign and prosecute an appeal on behalf of a corporation, or that only a licensed attorney could represent a corporation, or that Mourad did not have standing to appeal because Mourad was not a party opposing the Motion For Appointment of a Trustee, or that Mourad himself did not personally oppose the appointment of a Trustee. Mourad testified against and opposed the Appointment of a Trustee at the April 1, 1996 hearing. Murphy negligently allowed Farrell to draft an appeal Notice for Mourad to sign,(See Exh. "10"), knowing that Mourad lacked standing to file the Notice Pro Se. It was not until after Mourad timely prosecuted and filed his statement of issues, Appendix and 44 page brief with the U.S. District Court that three Governmental entities jointly moved, on August 5, 1996, to dismiss Mourad's appeal on the alleged ground that Mourad lacked standing.
39. Murphy violated DR 3-101(A) by aiding a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law.
40. Hanify & King remained in the bankruptcy case as counsel for V&M Management until October 10, 1996. On October 10, 1996, Attorney Leonard Krulewhich called and faxed Murphy an October 10, 1996 letter (See Exh. "11"), asking Murphy to assist in protecting Mourad's appeal or substituting V&M as the appellant.
41. Rather than help, Murphy and Hanify & King filed a Motion to Withdraw from the case on the same- October 10, 1996 date as Krulewich's letter, and the Bankruptcy Court promptly allowed that Withdrawal Motion on the same October 10, 1996 day, without an opportunity for V&M or anyone to file an opposition, without an opportunity for V&M to secure successor counsel, and without further explanation of its actions by Hanify & King. Murphy violated D.R. 2-110(A)(2) by seeking to withdraw from employment before he took reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to his clients rights.
42. Had Murphy, Farrell and Hanify & King obtained the requested discovery against the BRA, DOR, and City of Boston; had they argued and presented the points researched and set forth in their Memorandum; had they argued the point set forth in Mourad's March 30, 1996 Affidavit that they had filed; had they argued the point set forth in their own Memorandum prepared by Edderiland Duncan (See Exh. "12"); had they objected to and disqualified BRA Attorney Saul Schapiro from offering an Affidavit, and simultaneously being a witness and attorney advocate in the same case; had they introduced the December 1989 Greystone Financing Commitment and shown how the DOR refused to accept $1,000,000; had they properly defended V&M and Mourad from false accusations of mismanagement; had they moved for alternation, amendment and for reconsideration of the Court's erroneous April 1, 1996 findings and conclusions; and had they timely taken an appeal on behalf of the Corporation, the Court would not have appointed a Trustee, or said appointment would have been reversed on appeal.
43. Furthermore, Murphy and Farrell consciously advised Mourad not to file his proof of claim as a creditor for the approximate amount of $130,000 in the Bankruptcy Court for the reason, as stated by Murphy, that "Judge Kenner would be biased to Mourad." Murphy recommended that Mourad wait, and file his claim in State Court. As a result of following Murphy's negligent, poor advice, Mourad had no standing as a creditor to the Debtor, V&M Management, and lost his right to participate in, and file Motions in the V&M bankruptcy.
44. Hanify & King, Murphy, and Farrell clearly delivered a political victory to the three governmental agencies (BRA, DOR and City of Boston) at the expense of V&M Management, Mourad and his family, V&M's creditors, the residents, and the administration of justice.
45. Murphy and Hanify & King also filed an excessive fee application with the Bankruptcy Court for its negligent representation providing no benefit to V&M Management.
46. Murphy and Hanify & King later filed an application for additional fees of approximately $104,000 (Hanify & King was paid a Court-authorized $25,000 retainer). Such a fees request was unreasonable and excessive for the less than two months of work devoted to the case that failed to benefit the Debtor's estate or the creditors interests'. Furthermore, Hanify & King refused to appeal the Court's April 1, 1996 order appointing a Trustee, thus leaving the Mourad family and V&M's creditors to hang in the wind, and then drafted a notice of appeal for Alphonse Mourad to sign, file, and prosecute when the non-lawyer (Mourad) had no standing to represent the interests of the corporate debtor, V&M Management. Hanify & King's representation fell far below acceptable standards of nonnegligent advocacy, much less the vigorous degree of advocacy ethically required of counsel, particularly in a case involving many public entities, and with clear political features involving a Debtor battling the BRA, DOR, and The City of Boston.
47. Murphy and Hanify & King further committed fraud and deceit in representing to Mourad that they could win a reorganization before Judge Kenner for V&M, a corporation with a steady cash flow of tenants' rents and a HUD Subsidy, but with too much debt and inappropriately taxed.
48. Murphy and Hanify & King further failed to disclose their prior representation of Stephen Gray, the appointed Chapter 11 Trustee for V&M to Mourad, the U.S. Trustee Office and the Court, and continued to represent Gray in the Patriot Paper case, and in June 1997, came to represent Gray as the Court Appointed Trustee in the In Re, American Shipyard Corp., Case No. 11-96-11753, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Rhode Island.
49. Murphy, Farrell, and Hanify & King's actions constitute fraud, deceit, breaches of professional, ethical, and fiduciary duty, and of contract.
50. Murphy, Farrell, and Hanify & King owed Mourad and V&M Management duties of due and professional care, and failed to fulfill those duties.
51. As a result of Murphy's, Farrell's, and Hanify & King's actions, negligence, breaches, deceit, and fraud, Mourad and the Mourad family suffered the loss of their fifteen year, $20 million investment in V&M Management.
52. Murphy and Hanify & King further conspired with Gray to deprive Mourad of his rights and investment in V&M Management, Inc.
53. Finally, the Defendants argue that "Mourad's claims are barred by Doctrines of Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata." Mourad says that although these issues were heard before the Bankruptcy Court (Kenner, C.J.,), the Court has been and continues to be biased towards Mourad, and that Mourad never received a fair hearing. Also, Judge Kenner is directly involved in this conspiracy, in that she allowed Stephen Gray to commit two counts of perjury by signing two Verified Statements stating that he (Gray) had no connection to the Debtor or its attorney's, knowing that Hanify & King and Murphy were representing Gray at the very same time in the Patriot Paper Corp. case in her very same court room.
54. Any rulings Judge Kenner made in the past regarding this matter were made as a result of her (Kenner) attempt to cover up and disguise the conspiracy between Murphy, Gray and herself.
55. Therefore, this case should be remanded back to Suffolk Superior Court, were Mourad can finally argue his case before a non-biased judge and jury. All of the legal manipulation by the Defendants and Jude Kenner in an attempt to cover up this conspiracy and theft of Mourad's personal assets and livelihood must end now.
56. There are no equitable reasons to keep this case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, and there are equitable and constitutional grounds to remand the action, and get the case out of Judge Kenner's Courtroom.
57. The fact that issues of collateral estoppel or res judicata may arise does not warrant federal removal; such issues can be heard in State Court.
58. To be blunt, Mourad maintains and believes that the Bankruptcy Court (Kenner, C.J.) hates Mourad, and is incapable of fairly adjudicating these claims, and is prejudiced, and biased against Mourad, as demonstrated by all the previous rulings made by Judge Kenner against Mourad.
59. Mourad says that Judge Kenner knew that Hanify & King represented Stephen Gray in the Patriot Paper Corp. bankruptcy case, (See Exh. "13"), because the Patriot Paper Corp. case was before Judge Kenner at the very same time the V&M bankruptcy case was before her. Judge Kenner did nothing about Stephen Gray's perjury when Gray filed two (April 5 and April 10, 1996) Verified Statements (See Exh. "14") stating he had no connection to the debtor's (V&M's) attorney(s), when, in fact, Gray had a very significant connection by being represented by Hanify & King in another bankruptcy matter at the same time (before Judge Kenner no less).
60. These are not issues that Judge Kenner, who heard the V&M Management bankruptcy, should hear in this new action, now that the bankruptcy is over.
61. Trustee Gray removed this action as a forum shopping tactic to find a friendly, favorable forum. He should not be allowed to take advantage of this device. That is why remand is the appropriate and equitable remedy to employ.
62. The Bankruptcy court has already heard enough about Alphonse Mourad. The Court has wrongfully formed a very negative, hostile, biased, prejudiced, and closed-minded opinion about Mourad, because he fought and disagreed with this Court's rulings, and challenged Judge Kenner about her misconduct, bias and prejudice to higher agencies, and the First Circuit Judicial Council.
63. The following lists Mourad's eight of Motions challenging Judge Kenner: (1) January 14, 1997 filed Mourad's Motion For Recusal, (2) February 13, 1997 filed Mourad's Motion For Change of Venue and Reassignment, (3) August 1, 1997 filed Emergency Motion For Reconsideration of Alphonse Mourad's Motion For Recusal, (4) June 1, 1998 filed Alphonse Mourad's Motion For Recusal of Judge Kenner On The Ground Of Her Committing Perjury, (5) August 11, 1998 filed Mourad's Motion To Supplement His Motion To Recuse Judge Kenner, (6) November 5, 1998 filed Mourad's Motion To Be Imprisoned and To Go On A Hunger Strike Until Judge Kenner Rules On His Six Pending Motions,
(6) November 13, 1998 filed Mourad's Motion Vowing Not To Leave Judge Kenner's Court Room and To Be Arrested And Go On Hunger Strike, (7) December 7, 1998 filed Mourad's Notice of His Petition For Impeachment of Judge Kenner To The House Judiciary Committee in Washington D.C.(See Exh. "15").
64. It is clear that Alphonse Mourad cannot get a fair hearing or fair shake from Judge Kenner. Judge Kenner's November 16, 1998 Order, attached as Exh. "16," barring Mourad from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court has already lead to Mourad's May 12, 1999 arrest.
65. Judge Kenner Ordered the U.S. Marshall to arrest Mourad for simply following the advice of Judge Kottymyer, to go to the Bankruptcy Court's Clerk's Office to inquire about the transferred State Court action, and to see whether it was docketed. Again, see May 11, 1999 Transcript, attached as Exh. "3."
66. On February 11, 2000, Mourad was found guilty by the U.S. District Court in U.S. v. Mourad, Criminal No.99-10200-RCL, and is awaiting sentencing where he could face up to six months in prison. Please see Mourad's Motion For Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Fed. R. CRIM. P. 29, attached as Exh."17."
WHEREFORE, Mourad, the Plaintiff and Appellate, seeks Relief from Judge Kenner's November 10, 1999 Order denying
all counts except for count 6 and requests that all counts concerning all Defendants be remanded back to the Suffolk Superior Court. Or, if the Court finds it appropriate, Mourad requests that all counts concerning only Hanify & King, Harold H. Murphy, and Donald Farrell be remanded back to Suffolk Superior Court, and to remand all counts concerning only Stephen S. Gray to the Federal Court because he is a Federal Bankruptcy Trustee.
Alphonse Mourad, Pro Se
125 West Street
Hyde Park, Ma.02136
February 28, 2000