Save Our State of Massachusetts
So much going on in the big scheme of things it’s easy to overlook the everyday nuances people across the state go through on the road to justice . . . if there is such a road. In almost all instances before justice is, (if ever), received, much time, money, and perhaps even one’s own sense of sanity is lost before a quasi reasonable outcome is achieved. But, as the saying goes, the attorneys need to get paid, and often are the only ones that “win”.
Is this what was meant by the saying the loss of common sense, or is this just business as usual to prop up and justify our courts’ budgets with all the inherent judges, prosecutors, clerks, security guards, bricks, morter, utilities, and everything else involved in the Massachusetts justice system that appears to be continuing to increase courthouses across the state? All the while, check out how many courtrooms are dark or locked, if not all day, then definitely from noon on. It’s not just the unreasonably prosecuted who pay dearly. We are all paying for THIS: [Contributed by Don S.]
Imagine being ARRESTED, JAILED and CONVICTED of a CRIME,
you weren’t even there to commit!!!
Only in Massachusetts………………………..
Joanne Santos of Bernardston, Mass. was ARRESTED, JAILED
and CONVICTED at a Bench Trial for TRESPASS, when she wasn’t even there…………………………
A crane boom swung over the “property line” causing the neighbor to claim injury.
Joanne Santos was falsely arrested and JAILED for four days with NO BAIL!!!
And Gov. Patrick wants people to move to Massachusetts……!!!!!!
Please go to this COMFLM.com link to see what happened to Joanne Santos.
What happened to Joanne Santos happens EVERY DAY in Massachusetts.
And the NEWS MEDIA has never reported on this save for COMMONWEALTH FREELANCE MEDIA
AT THIS LINK: http://www.comflm.com/comflmregistrynewsthesundayviews/id96.html
Here is the actual APPEAL COURT ruling, VACATING the lower court ruling,,,
—— but JOANNE SANTOS is still listed on the CORI criminal database as a CRIMINAL OFFENDER.
|Docket No.:||No. 02-P-206.|
|Parties:||COMMONWEALTH vs. JOANNE M. SANTOS.|
|Dates:||April 14, 2003. – August 1, 2003.|
|Present:||Laurence, McHugh, & Cohen, JJ.|
|Trespass. Statute, Construction.|
Complaint received and sworn to in the Greenfield Division of the District Court Department on May 3, 2001.
The case was heard by W. Michael Ryan, J.
Cynthia M. Pepyne, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Timothy M. Farris for the defendant.
LAURENCE, J. After a bench trial on the charge of criminal trespass (G. L. c. 266, § 120) in Franklin District Court, the defendant, Joanne Santos, was convicted of “trespass by agency.”(1) She contends that the trial judge erred (1) in finding that the mechanical hoisting of cement blocks above, but never touching, her neighbors’ driveway (which bisected her property) constituted a criminal trespass; and (2) in finding her guilty of trespass by reason of the actions taken by the crane operator whom she had hired to move the cement blocks. Finding no basis upon which the defendant’s conviction may stand, we reverse.
Concerned about the defendant’s customers’ foot and automobile traffic across the driveway, the Schadys, through their attorney, requested that the defendant prevent her customers from using their claimed driveway in any manner. Subsequently, on March 23, 2001, the defendant was served with a “no trespassing” notice, pursuant to G. L. c. 266, § 120. The notice stated: “You are hereby notified that you, your tenants, your guests, your employees, your invitees and anyone under your direction are prohibited from entering or remaining upon the land or building owned and occupied by [the Schadys]. . . . This notice is intended to include [the Schadys’] driveway.”
On May 2, 2001, the date of the alleged trespass, the defendant had contracted with a crane operator to move several three by five foot rectangular cement blocks from a field on her property and to place them on the northerly and southerly edges of her land bordering the driveway — where they previously had been located before the Schadys moved them — in such a way as to prevent her customers from entering the driveway. The defendant orally informed the crane operator that, because she was involved in a boundary dispute with the Schadys over the extent of their portion of the driveway, he was to avoid entering or touching in any way the ten-foot wide portion of the driveway she conceded was their property, to be sure to place the cement blocks entirely on what she claimed to be her property, and to keep the crane equipment in the buffer zone at all times. She did not show or tell the operator of the no trespassing notice. The crane operator proceeded to transfer the blocks from the defendant’s field by hoisting them into the air, maneuvering them over the driveway when necessary, and placing them alongside the driveway but on the defendant’s claimed property.(3) Efficient crane operation required that the boom of the crane at times had to swing across the airspace above the driveway (at some unspecified height) when placing a cement block on the other side.
While these cement blocks were being relocated, Karen Schady (who had observed the work as she was leaving to do errands) told the crane operator that “there was a land dispute going on.” She then attempted to “show” him (in some fashion not described in her testimony) the no trespassing notice, but he “didn’t look at it” as he continued moving the blocks even though Karen Schady continued to claim that the blocks were being laid on her property. Nothing in the record indicates that any persons other than the defendant, the crane operator, and Karen Schady were present at the scene or that the crane operations posed any risk or danger to anyone or caused any damage to any property.…………..ruling…………….
With all due deference to art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, we are constrained to comment on the regrettable and questionable expenditure of public funds that the arguably arbitrary and erratic prosecution of this case involved. It seems clear that a more appropriate course for a dispute of this nature would have been a tort action, where equitable relief and the contempt sanction could adequately have remedied any ongoing, sustained or repetitive injury to legitimate property rights. Conservation of our limited judicial and prosecutorial resources is an obligation that must be shared by all officers of the justice system, and, as this case demonstrates, is one that needs reiteration.