Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "135839486",
    "label": "JGR/Supreme Court (5 of 7)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839486"
}

{
    "id": "135839486",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839486",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "JGR/Supreme Court (5 of 7)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839486",
    "identifierLocal": "485",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "John Roberts' Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-052-005-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-052-005-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-052-005-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/135839486",
    "naId": 135839486,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
        "year": 1986
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
        "year": 1982
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-052-005-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "0b25e293a04f41b4",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: JGR/Supreme Court\n(5 of 7)\nBox: 52\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nCall Clegg:\nSet all on Anter-\ncircuit Tribural\nand speeches AG\ngave on case load\nproblem. send\ntogether with\nstatement in file\nattached to zarilli.\n(JGR ashed me to\nmaturals/loged\nget the attached\nand forward\nto you!)\naca\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nPrevious editions usable\nTO:\nJohn\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nOF\n(Organization) Vinient Barilli\nFTS\nAUTOVON\nPLEASE 67/723-7163 PHONE\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\nnate Count of\nappeals letter\nto Dr. F3 in lady\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nTIME\nllea\n1130\n9:05\n63-110 NSN 7540-00-634-4018 STANDARD FORM 63 (Rev. 8-81)\nPrescribed by GSA\n* U.S.G.P.O.: 1984-421-529/326\nFPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nPrevious editions usable\nTO:\nJohn Roberts\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nHencent Zarrilli\nOF (Organization)\nPLEASE PHONE\nFTS\nAUTOVON\n617-723-7163 (tomorrow)\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\ntoday after 4 617-523-9210 call\nre: lether an (84-12-10)\n\"nate Court ap\nappeals\nRECEIVED BY\nDATE\nTIME\nNB\n1-28\n11:10\n63-110 NSN 7540-00-634-4018 STANDARD FORM 63 (Rev. 8-81)\nU.S.G.P.O.: 1983 -421-529/321\nPrescribed by GSA\nFPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\n280418\nID #.\nCU\nJV\n-\nWHITE HOUSE\nFB051\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\nO OUTGOING\nH INTERNAL\nI INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent:\nVincent F. Zarrilli\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: national Inut of arpeale\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nW Holland\n$2\nORIGINATOR\n84/1/2010\n/ /\nReferral Note:\nWAT18\nD 8411211111\n58/12/21\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/ /\n-\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA- Appropriate Action\nI . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC - Comment/Recommendation\nR - Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD - Draft Response\nS. For Signature\nF - - Furnish Fact Sheet\nX - Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nComments: Secto\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nPRESERVATION COPY\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nVINCENT F. ZARRILLI\nBox 101, Hanover Station\nBoston, Massachusetts 02113\nNovember 30, 1984\n280418 Cu\nFred Fielding, Esq.\nThe White House\n1600 Pennsylvania Avenue\nWashington, DC 20500\nDear Mr. Fielding:\nYou may recall our brief phone conversation several months\nago wherein I suggested that executive action was needed to\nsave and improve the floundering National Court of Appeals\nbill. I herewith enclose material on the subject, and would\nappreciate your comments.\nIt was presented as a reconsideration motion directly to the\nU.S. Supreme Court following the denial of a certiorari petition\nin an attempt to request the Court to comment, which it declined\nto do and simply denied the motion.\nI respectfully request that you disregard the packaging and\nevaluate the proposal and arguments on their own merits aimed\nat influencing the future legislative course of the National\nCourt of Appeals.\nAny revision of this material would suggest that a proposed\nAppeals Court also have a specialized corporate panel in bank-\nruptcy matters as my experience in the interim period indicates\nthat the existing courts of review, however capable they may be\nin general matters, are often inept in this highly complex area\nof law.\nVery truly yours,\nVincent F. Zarrilli\n/ma P.S\nthe\nThe President may not be aware OF STATISTICS\nwhich appear on The next page, I would appreciate your\nbring Them is well as The pryposals TO his attention:\nIT'S THE\nBOTTOM LINE\nTHAT COUNTS\nU.S. Supreme Court\n10 year record of entered cases\ndenied or dismissed WITHOUT\nA\nHEARING\nTerm\nPaid Cases\nMiscellaneous Cases\nTotal\n1973\n1405\n1942\n3347\n1974\n1594\n1914\n3508\n1975\n1538\n1903\n3441\n1976\n1620\n2013\n3633\n1977\n1676\n1899\n3575\n1978\n1732\n1938\n3670\n1979\n1776\n1757\n3533\n1980\n1999\n1968\n3967\n1981\n2100\n2014\n4114\n1982\n1892\n1995\n3887\n17,332\n19,343\n36,675\nGRAND TEN YEAR TOTAL\n36,675\ndoes the\n36,675\nSupreme Cou:\nneed help?\nSource: Compiled from November editions of the Harvard Law\nReview.\n4\nSTROM THURMOND, S.C., CHAIRMAN\nCHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., MD.\nJOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., DEL\nPAUL LAXALT, NEV.\nEDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS.\nORRIN C. HATCH, UTAH\nROBERT C. SYRD. W. VA.\nROBERT DONE, KANS.\nHOWARD M. METZENBAUM, OHIO\nALAM K SIMPSON, WYO.\nDENNIS DECOMICIN: ARIZ.\nJOHN EAST. N.C.\nPATRICK J. LLAHY, VT.\nUnited States Senate\nCHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA\nMAX EAUCUS. MONT.\nJEREMIAH DENTON. ALA.\nHOWELL HEFLIN, ALA\nARLEN SPECTER, PA.\nCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY\nJINTON DEVANE LIDE, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20510\nDEBCRAH X. OWEN. GENERAL COUNSEL\nSHIRLEY J. FANNING. CHIEF CLERK\nMARK h. GITENSTEIN, MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL\nSeptember 19, 1983\nMr. Vincent F. Zarrilli\nBox 101, Hanover Station\nBoston, Massachusetts 02113\nDear Mr. Zarilli:\nThank you for your letter regarding judicial reform.\nAt present, no hearings are scheduled on the proposed inter-\ncircuit tribunal. However, I assure you that the Committee\nwill keep your comments and your package of information in\nmind as we study this important issue.\nI appreciate your taking the time to express your views. If\nI may be of any further assistance to you on this or any\nother matter, please feel free to contact me.\nWith kindest regards and best wishes,\nSincerely,\nStrom Thurmond\nStrom Thurmond\nChairman\nST:jcp\nSTROM THURMOND, S.C., CHAIRMAN\nCHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., MD.\nJOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., DEL.\nPAUL LAXALT. NEV.\nEDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS.\nORRIN G. HATCH. UTAH\nROBERT C. BYRD. W. VA.\nROBERT DOLE. KANS.\nHOWARD M. METZENBAUM, OHIO\nALAN K. SIMPSON. WYO.\nDENNIS DECONCINI, ARIZ.\nJOHN P. EAST. N.C.\nPATRICK J. LEAHY. VT.\nUnited States Senate\nCHARLES E. GRASSLEY. IOWA\nMAX BAUCUS. MONT.\nJEREMIAH DENTON. ALA.\nHOWELL HEFLIN. ALA.\nARLEN SPECTER, PA.\nCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY\nVINTON DEVANE LIDE CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR\nMARK H. GITENSTEIN, MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL\nWASHINGTON. D.C. 20510\nFebruary 27, 1984\nMr. Vincent F. Zarrilli\nBox 101\n4 Garden Court\nBoston, Massachusetts 02113\nDear Mr. Zarrilli:\nSenator Kennedy has asked me to respond to your\nrecent letter and to the earlier materials you forwarded\nto him regarding proposals before the Congress to estab--\nlish a National Court of Appeals.\nSenator Kennedy is currently reviewing all the\npending proposals on how to best deal with our burgeoning\nfederal caseload. He asked me to express his appreciation\nfor the time and interest you have devoted to this impor-\ntant matter, and to assure you that he will give your\nproposal every consideration.\nSincerely,\nBuil Weeles\nBurt Wides\nCounsel\nthe Individual letten sont 18 The mombors sen -To borj Junciary commits\nVINCENT F. ZARRILLI\nBox 101, 4 Garden Court\nBoston, MA 02113\nMay 21, 1984\nDear\nThe enclosed material relates to written proposals\nwhich I as a layman with a strong interest in court adminis-\ntration have previously made which may offer a solution to\nthe horrendous problem of the inability of the U. S. Supreme\nCourt to hear cases on the merits. My own research indicates\nthat in the past ten years, 36,675 petitions have summarily\ndismissed in. this fashion.\nI believe that you should give serious consideration to\nthis proposal which can be obtained from Senator Thurmond or\nSenator Kennedy as access to ultimate justice is a fundamental\nright and belief of all Americans but its practice is now\nunnecessarily being aborted, which would seem to indicate\nthat your responsibility as a member of the Senate Judiciary\nis not being properly discharged.\nVery truly yours,\nBurger steps up pitch for a new appeals panel\nUnited Press International\nFive 5 Duor alough 5/17/83\nJustice told the annual meeting of the\nbers of the panel would be present ap-\nWASHINGTON Chief Justice War-\nAmerican Law Institute that his pro-\npeals court Judges, with one from each\nren Burger stepped up his campaign for\nposed court should be seen as \"a differ-\ncircult selected on a rotating basis.\n@ high-powered new appeals court to\nent way of resolving conflicts rather\nAlthough the justices would retain\ndv. warning that the overworked Su-\nthan as a novel proposal for a new body\nthe right of review, Burger predicted\npreve Court - and the entire judicial\nof judges.\nthey would re examine very few cases\nsystem could break down without it.\nSimply because we have func-\ndecided by the new panel.\nThe Waw court, proposed by Burger\ntioned with the present structure\nRejecting the idea of expanding the\nFebrual could take over about a\nsince 1891 is utterly meaningless in\nhigh court, Burger said adding more\nthin of high court's workload by re-\nterms of the needs of the present and\njustices \"would be a handicap. not an\nsolving onflicti decisions among the\nparticularly the next 10 to 20 years,\"\nasset.\"\n13 federà appeals. purts.\nbe said.\nOnly changes in routing circuit con-\nEight of nint justices have com-\nBurger spoke on the eve of a House\nflict cases will provide a solution that\nplained in recdive onths that they are\nJudiciary subcommittee hearing on his\nwill preserve the quality of decisions\noverworked, and five have endorsed\nproposal. A Senate subcommittee plans\nand \"avoid a literal breakdown of the\ncreation of an experimental panel to re\nto continue its consideration of the leg-\nsystem,\" he said.\nsolve the Intercircult conflicts. The\nislation next week.\nUnless some relief arrives, he said,\nhigh court has handled 42 such cases\nThe new court, as described by\nthe court will be forced to decide more,\nin each of the last three years.\nBurger, would be set, up as a five-year\ncases by taking shortcuts through its\nDefending his idea from \"unrea-\nexperiment. I It were successful, Con-\nnormal process of arguments and\nsoned resistance.\" the 75-year-old Chief\ngress could make # permanent. Mem-\nsigned opinions.\nPRESERVATION COPY\nARLEN SPECTER\nCOMMITTEES\nJUDICIARY\nPENNSYLVANIA\nAPPROPRIATIONS\nVETERANS'AFFAIRS\nUnited States Senate\nWASHINGTON. D.C. 20510\nJune 8, 1984\nMr. Vincent F. Zarrilli\nBox 101\n4 Garden Court\nBoston, Massachusetts 02113\nDear Mr. Zarrilli:\nThank you for taking the time to write regarding the\nU.S. Supreme Court.\nAs a United States Senator, I am committed to serving the\npublic interest and developing my stands on national issues based\non their merits.\nYour expression of views has helped me in this process.\nThrough this type of communication, our democracy functions more\nefficiently.\nYou may be sure that I will keep your views very much before\nme in making decisions on issues which come before the 98th\nCongress. I appreciate your taking the time to apprise me of\nyour views.\nSincerely,\nala Specta\nArlen Specter\nAS/mft\nNote:\nThe following pages which exhibit\ninformation relative to proposer's MASS LeGISLATive\nBills me included because OF The preventative\nValue OF H5444 JUDILOL merit retention, IT emplhasizes\nthe CANONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS\nIT IS proposer's belief That greaten public\nemphesis which can only be brought about by you 140\nrecipient, who IS /M n position TO fosten\npublic discussion or The bill, can have many positive\neffects on The entire judicial system Sy:\n(1) + enxiter, create much more reluce diligence neview cases at\nThe COUNT OF instance AND Thereby level That IS\nthe (3) reduce The Behind much questionshe julicial\nFIRST judicial arrugunce behav,\nis evidenced by The nticles below:\nTHE BOSTON GLOBE MONDAY. DECEMBER 3. 1984 51\nR.I. chief justice\ndefends friendship\nProvidence paper\nA published report says Chief\nJustice Joseph Bevilacqua of the\nurges judge to quit 10/6/\nRhode Island Supreme Court has,\nUnited Press International\nfy\nbeen observed associating with\nPROVIDENCE - Rhode Island\nconvicted felons with alleged ties\nlargest newspaper called yester-\nto organized crime. The Provi-\nday for state Supreme Court Chief\ndence Sunday Journal reported\nJustice Joseph A. Bevilacqua's\nthat police and a newspaper re-\nresignation because of allegations\nporter have seen the judge visit\nhe continues to associate with\none convicted felon 17 times this\nknown criminals.\nyear. Police also observed Bevilac-\nThe Providence Journal-Bulle-\nqua's car at a shop owned by a\ntin. in an editorial. said Bevilac-\nconvicted felon and saw the judge\nqua conduct violated the judicial\nenter a clothing store described by\ncode of ethics which says judges\na police officer as a \"crime pal-\nshould be beyond reproach.\nace,\" the newspaper reported. Be-\nvilacqua denied he has done any-\nthing wrong. He said Robert A.\nBarbato. a twice-convicted felon,\nis a personal friend of 20 years.\nThe judge, in reply to a newspaper\nquestion, said his friendship with\nBarbato is open and the meetings\n\"were not surreptitious.\" (UPI)\nNATIONAL\nBC\nCONFERENCE\nOF BLACK\nLAWYERS\nMarch 23, 1983\nMr. Vincent F. Zarrilli\nBox 101, 4 Garden Court\nBoston, MA 02113\nDear Mr. Zarrilli:\nThank you for your letter of March 15, 1983 commenting\non my observations pertaining to sexist judicial conduct.\nI have reviewed with interest your proposed legislation\nfor a Judicial Merit Retention System and I think such a\nsystem would do much to correct many of the \"non-flagrant\"\nerrors our judges are guilty of.\nLet me know what I can do to support your bill.\nVery truly yours,\nMarguet a. Bunham\nMargaret A. Burnham\nNational Director\nMAB: mae\n126 West 119 Street, New York, New York 10026 212 - 864-4000\nBox 101, 4 Garden Court\nBoston, Massachusetts 02113\nMarch 15, 1983\nMargaret Burnham\nDirector - National Conference of Black Lawyers\n126 West 119 Street\nNew York, New York\nre: Judicial Accountability\nDear Ms. Burnham:\nI read with interest a recent article (3/6/83) by Nick King\nof the Boston Globe where you were quoted as decrying the absence\nof consequences on the part of the judiciary for maintaining\nsexist attitudes from observations made while you held office in\nthe Massachusetts Judiciary. The assumption is that your refer-\nences were to male judges.\nI herewith include a copy of House Bill #1313, Judicial\nMerit Retention, which I originated several years ago which\nseeks to hold all judges of the trial courts accountable for\ntheir courtroom activities in an equitable manner.\nIts legislative history is essentially that it hás never\ngone beyond the Joint Judiciary Committee which as you probably\nknow is composed of approximately 15 lawyers.\nWhile I have approached several sitting judges as well as 2\nor 3 retired judges, no one has been willing to take a position.\nKindred requests to the past president of the Masachusetts Bar\nAssociation (W. Budd and Carl Monecki and others) to publicly\ndebate the issue have been greeted with silence.\nThe article quoted you as saying \"that there are no conse-\nquences (in the Massachusetts Judiciary) for sexist attitudes\",\nif accurate, this buttresses the basic argument underlying the\nneed for enactment of my bill, i.e., there are virtually no\nconsequences for anything apart from flagrant misbehavior. The\nextraordinary broad term of judicial discretion encompasses\nabuses in the legal-reviewable sense only. Allegations of\nviolations of the canons of judicial ethics have virtually no\nvehicle for public expression. Ironically it is the lack of\nadherence to the canons which I believe is the causative factor\nbehind a significant percentage but certainly not all of reversed\ncases as the nature of law is such that even the very best judges\ncan reasonably be reversed once or twice per year.\n1The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct is usually\neffective in these rare situations but appears to rely on the\nnews media to bring violations of this nature to its attention.\nThe point here is that your complaint supra would appear to\nbe in direct confict with canons 2,3 (exhibit A of that portion of\nthe American Bar Association's code adopted by the Commonwealth\nof Massachusetts via Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3.09. That\ncanon mandates\nimpartiality) yet the judges comment bespeaks\nanything but impartiality.\nIf you were the attorney representing the female defendent\nin the article, how would you raise the issue and to whom? An\nappelate court in 1983 would not consider it to be a meritworthy\nground for review. If you have the effontry to raise it directly\nto the \"old school\" judge himself, he would probably deny it\nwith great eloquence extolling his anti-sexist posture and then\nquickly find other grounds to defeat you.\nEpisodes of all kinds embracing this methodology and depar-\nture from principle take place innumerable times throughout this\nstate, every other state and perhaps to a lesser but significant\nextent in the federal judiciary.\nI submit that this state of affairs exists simply because\nthere is no organized vehicle which allows the \"witnesses\"\npresent in the courtroom to testify in a meaningful manner so\nthat the preventative force of accountability is present at\neach hearing.\nI do not represent the Judicial Merit Retention bill to be\nperfect. It requires input and modification but do maintain\nthat it is a good start to an \"old politics\" system badly in\nneed of refinement.\nMay I respectfully request your thoughts.\nVery Truly Yours,\n432ml Vincent F. Zarrilli\nCopies to various parties and organizations interested in judicial\nreform - names available on request.\nW omen judges tell of sexism\nBy Nick King\nsometimes obvious. albeit usually unin-\ning ranks of women lawyers have\nGlobe Staff\ntentional. they said. But always It is\nsprung up in nearly every state.\nOne day not long ago, after unsue-\nmaddening and unfair to be. as Per-\nfully trying to stop two opposing at-\naetta put it. considered \"less credible\nDespite these gains, old attitudes\ntheys from arguing. Massachusetts\nand less serious\" simply because of gen-\npersist. the judges said yesterday. By\nspeals Court Judge Charlotte Anne\nder.\nand large. women judges continue to\nerretta stood up. declared the was tak:\nlack influence in court administration\nthe\ncase\nunder\nadvisement\nBurnham sold the of one male\nand policy-making. have limited power\njudge who, to open court first professed\nwalked out of the\nin bar associations and witness what\ntoibe of \"the ald then went on\nthey view as tokenism on both the state\nwouldn't Hoten to me, she\nto exhmentsh the senuale defendant to re-\nand federal levels.\nsaid yesterday. recalling her frustra-\nsolve her family problems by renounc-\nfignamd anger at being ignored by the\ning her job and returning home\nFor instance President Renald Rea\nlawyers\ngan, although he appointed Justice\n\"This is not past history. this is two\nO'Connor, has been sharply criticized\nPeretta's experience is hardly\nor three weeks ago,\" said Burnham.\nfor the few women he has named to fed\nunique among the few female judges in\n\"And the fact that the judge could\neral court.\nMassachusetts. And yesterday, during\nspeak his mind publicly shows the ex:\na symposium \"at New England Law\ntent of the problem. that there are no\nIf the public. and women who have\nSchool In Boston. Perretta and two col-\nconsequences for sexist attitudes.\"\nbecome judges and lawyers. would take\nleagues provided some unusual glimps-\na more active role in the bar. according\nes into the difficult and sometimes iso-\nBurnham. who resigned her judge-\nto Burnham, this would make the pro-\nlated lives they lead as women on the\nship to become director of the New\nfession more responsive and more ac-\nbench.\nYork-based National Conference of\ncountable and ultimately produce a\nBlack Lawyers, said the best way to\ngender-free jurisprudence.\nNet that being tn the judiciary.\nchange sexist attitudes in jurispru-\ndoesn't have its good points Indeed,\ndence 35 to get more women on the\nEquality at the bench. however.\nPerretta, US Administrative Law Judge\nbench.\nwould probably not end the isolation\nKathleen Ryan Dacey and recently re-\nand loneliness that judges. whether\nsigned Boston Municipal Court Judge\nLess than a decade ago. the entire\nwomen or men. offentimes feel. Perretta\nMargaret Burnham diescribed being\npopulation of female judges nationwide\nsaid that while she loves her job as an\na judge as challenging and rewarding\nmight have fit into the medium-sized\nappeals court judge, It is time consum-\nclassroom where yesterday's sympo-\ning and her personal life \"is in chaos.'\nBut as a distinct minority - only\nsium on women and the law was held.\nabout 20 of the more than 250 judges in\nAnd Burnham said there has been a\nMassachusetts are women - they said\nToday there are more than 800\nsharp difference in the way people treat\nthey often suffer the sexist conse-\nmembers of the 5-year-old National\nher since she resigned from the bench.\nquences of being females in a male-\nAssn. of Women Judges. including\n\"Having 'judge' in front of your name\ndominated profession.\ncharter member Sandra Day O'Connor\nchanges the way people approach you.\nof the United States Supreme Court. in\nshe said. \"I have friends now 1 didn't\nSomethmel the sex bias is subtle,\naddition, groups representing the grow-\nhave before.\nAt the Supreme Judicial Court holden at Boston within and for\nsaid Commonwealth on the twenty-sixth day of June\n, in\nthe year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eighty:\npresent,\nHON. EDWARD F. HENNESSEY, Chief Justice\n)\nHON. FRANCIS J. QUIRICO\n)\nHON. ROBERT BRAUCHER\n)\n)\nHON. BENJAMIN KAPLAN\n)\nJustices\n)\nHON. HERBERT P. WILKINS\n)\n)\nHON. PAUL J. LIACOS\n)\n)\nEXHIBIT\nA\nCANON 2\nA Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and\nthe Appearance of Impropriety in\nAll His Activities\n(A) A judge should respect and comply with the law and\nshould conduct himself at all times in a manner that\npromotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality\nof the judiciary.\n(B) A judge should not allow his family, social, or other\nrelationships to influence his judicial conduct or judgment.\nHe should not lend the prestige of his office to advance\nthe private interests of others; nor should he convey\nor permit others to convey the impression that they are\nin a special position to influence him. He should not\ntestify voluntarily as a character witness.\nCANON 3\n:- Judge Should Perform the Duties of\nHis Office Impartially and Diligently\nThe judicial duties of a judge take precedence over\nall his other activities. His judicial duties include\nall the duties of his office prescribed by law. In the\nperformance of these duties, the following standards\napply:\n(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities\n(1) A judge should be faithful to the law and main-\ntain professional competence in it. He should be\n-146-\n1984 MASS Legislature\nHOUSE\nNo. 1094\nBy Mr. DiMasi of Boston (by request), petition of Vincent Zarrilli\nfor legislation to establish a modified judicial merit-retention system in\norder to determine annually if judges should continue to hold office.\nThe Judiciary.\nHOUSE\nNo. 1095\nBy Mr. DiMasi of Boston, petition of Vincent F. Zarrilli for legisla-\ntion to require the tabulation of results of those cases heard by the\nSupreme Judicial Court and the Appeals Court. The Judiciary.\nHOUSE\nNo. 1096\nBy Mr. DiMasi of Boston (by request), petition of Vincent Zarrilli\nfor legislation to define the crime of perjury. The Judiciary.\nHOUSE\nNo. 1097\nBy Mr. DiMasi of Boston (by request), petition of Vincent Zarrilli\nfor legislation to require a statement of reasons to accompany the\ndenial or dismissal of any motion on activity entered in the Appeals\nCourt or Supreme Judicial Court. The Judiciary.\nHOUSE\nNo. 1098\nBy Mr. DiMasi of Boston (by request), petition of Vincent Zarrilli\nrelative to increasing the salaries of the chief justice and each associate\njudge of the Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court. The\nJudiciary.\nHOUSE\nNo. 1099\nBy Mr. DiMasi of Boston (by request), petition of Vincent Zarrilli\nrelative to authorizing the Appeals Court to reinstate its judgment of\ndismissal in the case of Vincent F. Zarrilli vs. Capitol Bank and Trust\nCompany. The Judiciary.\nHOUSE\nNo. 1100\nBy Mr. DiMasi of Boston (by request), petition of Vincent Zarrilli\nfor legislation to increase the number of associate justices of the\nSupreme Judicial Court and the Appeals Court. The Judiciary.\nSUPPORT\"JUDGE THE JUDGES\"\nBILL H5444\nHOUSE\nNo. 5444\nBy Mr. DiMasi of Boston (by request), petition of Vincent Zarrilli\n2\nHOUSE - No. 5444\n(January\n1981\nHOUSE - No. 5444\nfor legislation to establish a modified judicial merit-retention system in\norder to determine annually il judges should continue to hold office.\nThe Judiciary.\n24\nhat the entire procedure shall be complete by the first I uesday\n5 ty of the chief administrative justice, chief justice of the superior\n25\nafter the lirst Monday in November of every year embodied in a\n\" count of district court may be grounds for at disciplinary hearing by\n26 report signed by each justice of the Supreme Count of Indicial\n7 the Board of Overseers.\nThe Commonwealth of Massachusetts\n27 Conduct.\nI\nSECTION 5. The administrative arrangement for the bill shall\nIn the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-One.\nI\nSECTION 2. that this Act shall also encompass a judicial atti-\n2\nhe attended to hy the Commission of Judicial Conduct who shall at\n2 tude survey wherein such person who has appeared in a courtroom\n1 all times be accountable to the chief administative justice of the\n3 where judicial proceedings have transpired may register his or her\n4 trial courts.\nAN ACT TO ESTABLISH A MODIFIED JUDICIAL MERIT-RETENTION SYSTEM.\n+ opinion based on the canons of judicial ethics IS to ment attain-\n5 ment of the specific presiding justice that such opinion be reflected\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General\n6 on the following scale: (1) outstanding: (2) very good: (3) good; (4)\n1.\nOutstanding\nCourt assembled. and by the authority of the same. as follows:\n7 fair: (5) see attached statement.\n8\nAny justice who receives a plurality of 500 or more designations\nI\nSECTION 1. A modified judicial merit-retention system shall\n9 of outstanding for two consecutive years shall receive additional\n2 be establishd in such a manner so as to each year conduct a\n10\ncompensation of $7,500.00 per year or each year of such designa-\n3 referendum survey wherein each individual who has appeared in a\n11 tion retroactive to the first year of such designation.\n2. Very good\n4 District Court or Superior Court courtroom wherein judicial pro-\n5 ceedings have transpired may participate in a survey wherein he or\nI\nSECTION 3. That any justice who has compiled 150 negative\n6 she may offer to the administrating agency a written and signed\n2 responses which is in lact attirmed by the Supreme Court of\n7 statement of reasons as to why any given judge should not hold\n3 judicial conduct may retain the title and compensation of bitherto\n3.\nGood\n8 office.\n4 held provided that said justice assumes and discharges administra-\n9\nThat said survey shall be written on forms supplied by the\n5 live matters under the aegis of the chief administrative justice with\n10 administrating agency and shall set forth that the participant has\n6 the assistance of chief justice 01 both the superior and district\n11 personal knowlege of the Code of Judicial Ethics and has no bias as\n7 courts who at their discretion at the expiration of two years may hy\n4. Fair\n12 standards in setting forth the above-mentioned statement of rea-\n8 majority vote reassign said justice to courtroom activity or at any\n13 sons.\n9 time for substantial cause discharge said justice from the judicial\n14\nThat said tabulation shall be referred to a committee of ultimate\n10 system in the entirety provided said discharge is attirmed by both\n15 authority composed of the judges of the Supreme Judicial Court\nII the Supreme Court or Judicial Conduct and executive conneil who\n16 and the Appellate Court to he known as the Supreme Court of\n12 shall act within ninety days of notice of discharge. Failure to act\n5. Ought not be retained\n17 Judicial Conduct on a basis of one judge one vote. who shall in turn\n13 within the specified time of either body shall he construed as\n(See attached statement.\n18 issue a statement of reasons as to why any given judge who the\n14 attirmation in such at manner such that any discharge becomes final\n19 attitude survey reveals has compiled 150 negative responses herein\n15 on the ninety-first day after the issuance of this notice of discharget\n20 defined as an expression that the judge ought not to retain his\nPARTICIPANT MUST HAVE APPEARED IN COURTROOM OF JUDGE WHO IS SUBJECT OF HIS\n16 by the chief administrative justice.\n21 office, has in fact been retained.\nSIGNED STATEMENT OF REASONS.\n22\nThat the survey shall take place on the first of May every year\nI\nSECTION 4. All attorneys duly licensed by the Common-\n23 and embrace each judge who has held office for six months.\n2 wealth and residing herein who have appeared in any controom\nAN ACT TO ESTABLISH A MODIFIED JUDICIAL MERIT-RETENTION SYSTEM.\n3 proceeding shall participate III such survey Any activity on the\n4 part of said attorneys deemed Involous III in bad bith by a majori-\nQUALIFIES JUDGE FOR $7,500 BONUS FOR NEXT CALENDAR YEAR.\nCall your legislator right now!\nNORTH END/WATERFRONT REVIEW\nPAGE 11\nAPRIL 18, 1984\nCarrier convention center proposed\nNorth End resident Vincent\nEssex or Hancock Class Car-\nZarrilli, who in early 1983\nrier exceeded on billion dol-\nproposed converting a moth-\nlars.\nballed aircraft carrier into a\nCounting all the deck\nprison facility and placing it in\nspace, the entire area to be\nBoston Harbor, is at It again.\nutilized might be between\nThis time it's a convention\n25-30 acres. Consider the\ncenter he's after.\npresent day value of just three\nFor Zarrilli, this is the third\nor four acres right on the\nattempt he has made to bring\nBoston waterfront.\na carrier to the harbor. In 1979\nRetail business in the\nhe proposed using a carrier as\nNorth End has been steadily\na parking garage.\ndropping for eight consecut-\nAlthough Zarrilli's previous\nive years. As more ground\ntwo proposals haven't panned\nfloor stores are converted to\nout, he's not discouraged as\nhousing, the area is losing the\nis evident by a third proposal\ncharm of its ethnic character\ncalling for a feasibility study\nwhich continued unchecked,\nof a multiple purpose project\nwill be a loss to the entire\naimed at solving a multipli-\nmetropolitan area. The park-\ncity of problems in the North\ning problem (ticketing, tow-\nEnd/Waterfront section of\ning. booting) which has dis-\nBoston.\nsuaded hundreds of thous-\nWhat Zarrilli is seeking is\nands of regulars from visiting\nthe conversion of a carrier into\nthe North End is the core of\na combination small convent-\nthe problem. A lost cost, $1\nion center-low cost parking\nper day, would seem to be the\nShown above to a sketch of what North End resident Vincent Zarrilli's proposal to convert an aircraft\ngarage in the water area\nonly means of correction.\ncarrier into e convention center would look like. The plan has been submitted to Mayor Ray Flynn and\nbetween Union and Lewis\nOnly a small portion of bus-\nother local politicians for their support of the plan to place a carrier between Union and Lewis Wharves.\nWharves.\ninesses can survive on resi-\nZarrilli claims the following\ndent's purchases. The high\npoints of his proposal should\ncost of housing virtually elimi-\nbe weighed very carefully:\nnates discretionary income.\nThe convention center\nThe resident sticker pro-\ncould be housed in the hanger\ngram, while welcomed by\ndeck with contains approxi-\nmost residents, has exacer-\nmately 60,000 square feet and\nbated retail business losses.\nexceeds three stories in\nOne of the possibilities of this\nheight for about 180,000 aq.\nproposal If determined feasi-\nft. of exhibit space.\nbie is to transfer all resident\nBelow are five decks which\nsticker parking to the carrier\nthe study might reveal could\nand meter all the streets, thus\nprovide space for about 2500\nproviding the city with sub-\nvehicles including the many\nstantial additional income and\nchartered tourist buses which\nfostering retail business sim-\npresently clog already con-\nultaneously.\ngested city streets from April\nThe bottom line to the\nuntil November.\nconvention Industry on a na-\nThe earlier proposals for\ntional level is that most con-\npurposes of the study were\nvention centers have embark-\nnever evaluated by qualified\ned on expansion plans and in\npersons. In each case govern-\nalmost all cases must go\nmental employees with no\nfather out to the outskirts of a\nsuccessful entrepreneurial\ncity to acquire a aite. Con-\nskills were left to make the\nventioneers prefer to stay In\ndecision; hence, the conept\nthe city. This proposal, If\nwith its somewhat massive\nfeasible, enables visitors to\ndimensions intimidated the\nstay right where the action is\ndecision makers. The \"safest\"\nand literally walk from the\napproach was to say no. To\nproposed site to the Old North\nthe best of my knowledge, no\nChurch, Paul Revere's Houes,\ninput was ever solicited from\nOld Ironsides, Bunker Hill,\nthe founding executives of\nQuincy Market, Hotels and\nany major corporations.\nDowntown Crossing.\nThrough a provision in the\nZarrilli has submitted his\nU.S. Code, 10 USC 7308\nplans to Mayor Ray Flynn and\n(1956), a governmental entity\nother local politicians seeking\nmay acquire a surplus vessel\nsupport for the carrier conver-\nat no charge from the U.S.\nsion proposal. Thus far, no\nNavy. The cost to the govern-\none has openly supported or\nment back in the forties for an\ncompletely tossed out the\nidea.\nStudy Possible of Plan to Create Floating\nNSIDE:\nCity looks for funds from tax-exemp\nNorth End Parking Facility\nsponsor an odd collection of bills\nAn unusual proposal to solve current parking\native Salvatore DiMasi and Boston City Councillor\nproblems in the North End by converting an old\nRobert Travaglini have sent letters to Boston\naircraft carrier to a convention center and\nMayor Raymond Flynn over the last seven\n2,500-car garage at Sargent's Wharf has resurfaced\nmonths, urging the city to examine Zarrilli's study\nagain and is actually being contemplated by the\nproposal. Last week, traffic and parking depart-\nTHE.BOSTON\ncity traffic and parking department.\nment official Ted Siegel said the city will take a\nNorth End resident and businessman Vincent\nclose look at Zarrilli's proposal soon to determine\nPRESERVATION\nZarrilli, with the support of several state and local\nwhether to hire a consultant to perform an in-\nelected officials, is urging the city to consider\ndepth feasibility study. Siegel estimates the study\nfunding a feasibility study to examine a plan to\ncould cost as much as $40,000. Zarrilli also adds\nmoor an obsolete aircraft carrier in Boston Har-\nhe will seek the contract for the feasibility study\nbor at Sargent's Wharf, located between Union\nif it is put out to bid by the city.\nand Lewis Wharf. Zarrilli's plan calls for convert-\nZarrilli believes his aircraft carrier plan could\ning the vessel's three-story hangar deck into a\nsolve the North End's acute parking shortage,\n\"small\" convention center\" and turning the ship's\nwhich he claims has dealt fatal blows to many\nlower decks into a \"low-cost\" parking facility.\nsmall neighborhood businesses. Zarrilli says 17\nZarrilli claims an unused aircraft carrier could be\nbusinesses on Salem Street have gone out of bus-\nobtained free of charge from the U.S. Navy.\niness in the last four years because of the city's\nState Senator Michael LoPresti, State Represent-\nsee North End, page B-1\nDecember\n4,\n1984\nVol.\n4,\nNo.\n14\n72\npages\nDiMasi believes Zarrilli's latest plan has \"obvious\nNorth End\ndrawbacks,\" but has nevertbeless asked the city to lool\nat it. \"I will look at anything to find a solution to the\nparking problem in the North End,\" he says. \"The air\ncontinued from page 12\ncraft carrier would be unsightly, might cause more traf\nfic conjestion and wouldn't fit in with the historica\n\"stringent ticketing policy and lack of parking space.\"\ncharacter of the North End, but I want the city to study\nZarrilli, who says he has \"a knack for bringing pro-\nthe overall parking problem in the area.\"\nducts into existence that never existed before,\" lob-\nSiegel, who notes that Zarrilli's parking plan wa\nbied city officials unsuccessfully in 1978 to consider\nrebuffed during former mayor Kevin White's admin\nusing a converted aircraft carrier as a floating prison.\nistration, says the city \"ought to either fish or cut bait'\nHe is currently pressuring federal and state trans-\non the plan. \"Let's really honestly look at it,\" he says\nportation officials to consider building a second deck\n'If it looks feasible, we'll look into it more.\"\non the central artery as an alternative to the plan cur-\nSiegel adds that his department will examine the cos\nrently-before the U.S: Congress to fund the depression\nof transporting an aircraft carrier to Boston; how th\nof the expressway. Zarrilli has also been petitioning\nvessel would be moored; the cost of converting it 1\nselected members of the U.S. Senate to introduce legis-\na parking facility and convention center, and how\nlation that would create a U.S. Court of Appeals to re-\nmuch revenue it would generate for the city.\nduce the caseload of the U.S. Supreme Court.\nPHOTO BY PATRICE FLESCH\nState Representative Salvatore DiMasi wants the city to look at a solution to the North End's\nparking shortage.\nU.S. SUPREME COURT\nVincent F. Zarrilli\n)\nCase # 82-6281\n)\n)\nVS\n)\nJonathan Randall, et al.\n)\n)\n)\nAPPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING\nNow comes the Appellant Vincent F. Zarrilli\npursuant to Rule 51, Rules of the United States\nSupreme Court requesting that the honorable court\nreconsider his denied petition for certiorari to\nthe United States Court of Appeals For The First\nCircuit for the reasons listed below.\nThis petition sought to reverse the First Cir-\ncuit Court of Appeals in Case # 82-1519 which\nin turn sought to rescue case #81-1782, First Circuit\nCourt of Appeals and its trial court counterpart U.S.\n78-1651-T. In this original action, petitioner\nsought vindication of wrongful actions of judges and\nother state parties for a series of invasions of\nlegally protected interests. To accomplish this it\nwas necessary to pierce the wall of both judicial\nand sovereign immunity which was verifiably accom-\nnote\n69 pugos OF\nsupporting ex hibres\nnot included\nPRESERVATION COPY\nplished in the 81-1782 brief (included in appendix).\nAn amendment to the Complaint by Affidavit\n(see Exhibit page AP1 ) filed pursuant to Rule 15\nand fully consistent with its theory, spirit and\ndecisional law was not allowed by Judge Tauro\n(Exhibit\npage AP15) who is also pictured in\njournalistic detail in Exhibit\npage\n).\nThe first Appeal, #81-1782, failed as the First\nCircuit Court noted in its order (Exhibit\npage AP14)\nthat it could not consider the Affidavit since\nJudge Tauro had never allowed it, no statement of\nreasons was ever given for this denial.\nPetitioner having spent a great deal of time\nand effort on the two immunity issues, as is obvious\nin the 81-1782 Appeal, and believed that he had\novercome them, then went forward on a separate\nappeal # 82-1519, First Circuit Court of Appeals\nto establish an abuse of discretion in the non-\nallowance of the critical Affidavit (See Appendix\nat AP 2-8) for the purpose of gaining a retroactive\nallowance so that the Appeals Court could take up\n-2-\nPRESERVI TIC: COPY\n81-1782 again and consider the Affidavit. The First\nCircuit Court dismissed 82-1519 with no opinion,\nby summary affirmance. The instant petition for\ncertiorari sought to reverse that judgment.\nPetitioner believed that had his petition been\nreviewed on the merits in this court he would have\nprevailed. The issue now becomes:\nWhy was this case not heard on the\nmerits in the court of last resort,\nthe U.S. Supreme Court?\nPetitioner believes that the substantial grounds\nprovision of Rule 51 U.S. Supreme Court rules can\nbe invoked to encompass the following analysis of\nthe factors affecting the denial of justice to\nboth himself and approximately 5,000 other disgruntled\npetitioners for the October 1982 term. Since the\nbreadth of factors covers so much, petitioner deems\n-3-\nit most efficient to present argument in the form\nof propositions.\nPROPOSITION 1\nAll United States Petitioners have the inher-\nent right to have their properly presented\ncases heard on the merits by the U.S. Supreme\nCourt and at the very least, all denied peti-\ntions should be accompanied by a brief state-\nment of reasons.\nPROPOSITION 2\nThe National Judicial mania to clear the\ndocket is causing untold thousands of liti-\ngants substantial harm which has no organ-\nized voice of protest but is operating to\nnationally lower the esteem of the judiciary\nand is harmful to the country as a whole.\n-4-\nPRESERVATION COPY\nPROPOSITION 3\nAlong with the rise in crime there has been\na corresponding rise in judicial misconduct\nof varying degrees which further tends to\nbring the judiciary into a state of lowered\nesteem (see Appendix, pages 17-36). .\nPROPOSITION 4\nThe U.S. Supreme Court with its 5311 new\ncases in the 1982 term and its rendering\nof 141 opinions is a disillusioning example\nof mismanagement and a poor model for all\nother courts.\nPROPOSITION 5\nAll proposals for remedying the situation in\nthe U.S. Supreme Court including the present\nproposed bill - Chapter 4 Sec. 602 (a) Part I\nof Title 28 U.S. Code fall enormously short\n-5-\nof providing an optimal solution.\nPROPOSITION 6\nThe basic underlying problem is the failure\nof those who bear the responsibility to face\nup and verbalize the fact that a crisis\ncalling for what might appear to be drastic\nsolutions does in fact exist.\nPROPOSITION 7\nThat the establishment of the above referred\nto Chapter 4 Sec. 602 etc. will at best solve\na small portion of the U.S. Supreme Court's\nproblems as originally proposed - a Chancellor\nand 26 new judges.\nPROPOSITION 8\nThat the optimal solution lies mainly in in-\ncreasing the number of judges to a figure\n-6-\nPRESERVATION COPY\nwhich can adequately and comfortably handle\nnot only the present caseload but the increased\nprojected caseload which should rise much\nhigher as the current recession subsides.\nPROPOSITION 9\nThat the shocking figure is between 60-80\njudgeships.\nPROPOSITION 10\nThat none, or at best very few, of the above\nof necessity should be absorbed from the\nexisting U.S. Courts of Appeals so that the\nnew National Court of Appeals has a brand\nnew start absent any conditioning.\nPROPOSITION 11\nThat the staffing can easily be accomplished\nby inviting applications from bright scholarly\n-7-\nlawyers with 8-10 years of litigation\npractice.\nPROPOSITION 12\nThat each applicant must demonstrate having\nachieved existing proficiency in the usage of\na personal computer so as to keep track of\nthe numerous data which must be digested.\nPROPOSITION 13\nThat the figure of 60-80 new associate judges\nof petitioner's instant proposal for the\nNational Court of Appeals is to be divided\ninto specialty sections for expertise develop-\nment in adjudicating:\n1) Intercircuit conflicts\n2) Intracircuit conflicts\n3) Multinational issues\n4) Environmental issues\n5) Energy issues\n-8-\nPRESERVATION COPY\n6) Tax issues\n7) Women's rights issues\n8) Prisoner's issues\n9) Employment and tenure issues\n10) Tax revenue issues\n11) Minority issues\n12) Outer space issues\n13) 42 U.S. Code 1983 issues\n14) Computer error issues\n15) General issues not encompassed by this\npartial listing of relatively new\nspecialty litigation.\nPROPOSITION 14\nThat the proposed legislation, supra, and its\ncontemplation of 26 judges regardless of how\ncapable they may be is inadequate to comfort-\nably and diligently handle the above listing.\n-9-\nPROPOSITION 15\nThat if that legislation is enacted, it will\nbe recognized to have been grossly insufficient\nwhen implementation is complete and the new\ncourt hears its first case.\nPROPOSITION 16\nThat the analogy cited by Chief Justice Burger\nin his address to the A.L.I. 5/17/83 (Appendix\npage 37, 38) to wit \"The farm boy and his\npony, etc.\" as used to characterized an\n\"unmanageable\" problem omitted the compelling\npossibility that the 1200 pound horse could\nhave been picked up had the farm boy enlisted\nthe assistance of at least 12-18 farm boys and\nfarm girls from the neighboring farms and in\nso doing increase both the strength of each\nindividual as well as the entire young farm-\ners' team.\n-10-\nPROPOSITION 17\nThat there is no logical consistency in dealing\nwith a crisis situation with a piecemeal plan\nand the best interests of the nation as a whole\nare subserved by my reluctance to identify each\ncontributing element and emerge with a viable,\noptimal plan.\nPROPOSITION 18\nThat in the light of the new law - the Omnibus\nJudgeship Act which authorized 850 new federal\njudges, petitionersproposal for 60-80 new review\ncourt judges or 10% is not unreasonable.\nPROPOSITION 19\nWith the facility acquisition, management struc-\nture, regulations, procedural rules formation,\nand every other factor affecting a new court\nis far easier to accomplish at the outset than\nadding by bits and pieces subsequently.\n-11-\nPROPOSITION 20\nThat the executive staff of any new national\ncourt of appeals be composed largely of persons\nwith no previous court experience but reasonable\nexperience from the field of Corporate Manage-\nment and data processing.\nPROPOSITION 21\nThat judges themselves however capable they\nmay be at decision-making are not always\nequally adept in administrative matters and\ntend to look for precedents as a basis for\ntheir comments in these matters as well and\nsince there are no precedents for the factors\nforming the present problem are often somewhat\nconfused.\nPROPOSITION 22\nThat any feasibility study deemed necessary\nto provide the basis for any legislation to\n-12-\nprovide proper review and confine the Supreme\nCourt to 80 to 100 signed opinions in any one\nyear, be effectuated by firms recommended by\nthe American Institute of Management who may\nhave no background in court administration.\nPROPOSITION 23\nThat while the factors affecting the inception\nof litigation in the Court of First Instance\nare beyond the influence of the Supreme Court,\nthe mounting tide of litigation in all courts\nof review may be somewhat diminished by the\nSupreme Court's commenting on the various prop-\nosals aimed at increased judicial accountability\nincluding judicial merit retention as proposed\nto the Mass. Legislature and incorporated in\npetitioner's letter to ex-Judge Barnham (Appendix\n,\npage 41-46) who endorsed it (Appendix\npage 46 ). .\n-13-\nPROPOSITION 24\nThat some trial judges on a national level do\nnot always perform diligently. Knowing that\nlikelihood of reversal by a court of review is\nremote, all factors considered, cost, time,\netc. Beyond this, if reversal should take\nplace there is no methodology for public\nawareness. Petitioner's remedy for this is\nH-1312 (Appendix page 45). If it were to\nbecome law in all states and the federal\nlevel, it might tend to reduce applications\nfor review generally as a greater degree of\ndiligence at the court of first instance has\nbeen constructively \"mandated.\" And some judges\nhave reason to no longer view the courts of\nreview as a \"dumping ground.\"\nPROPOSITION 25\nThat the Canons of Judicial Ethics (Appendix\npage 52-68) which are a part of the basis of\n-14-\npetitioner's judicial merit retention bill\nare flaunted thousands of times daily in\ncourtrooms from Maine to Alaska and part\nof the litigation engulfment on all courts of\nreview and ultimately on the U.S. Supreme\nCourt result from this paradox. The focusing\nof attention by the U.S. Supreme Court on\nthis venerable but disrespected body of law\nmay have surprising results. At the very\nleast it will elevate public confidence in\nthe judicial courtroom conduct control system.\nPROPOSITION 26\nThat the vastly increased use of the summary\ndisposition calendar in courts of review is\nin many cases basically unfair and nothing\nmore than the use of proper and accepted term-\ninology to deny people of rights under color\nof law.\nPRESERVATION COPY\n-15-\nPROPOSITION 27\nThat the track record of the Mass. Appeals\nCourt, an intermediate court of review formed\nin 1972 to reduce the load on the Mass. Supreme\nJudicial Court, forms an example in support\nof petitioner's arguments. This court was\nformed in 1972 with six judges. It now in\nJune 1983 has 13. The number of summary\ndispositions has increased substantially. The\nlack of a sufficient number of judges and spe-\ncific areas of expertise may influence its\nsummary calendar dispositions. See Zarrilli\nvs. Capitol Bank et al., U.S. Supreme Court\nTerm 1981 cert. application denied, where\nthe dismissal by the Mass. Appeals Court may\nhave been influenced by unwanted complexity.\nMassachusetts has 5.5 million residents\nwhich this Appeals Court serves with 13 judges.\nThis figure is less than 2% of the number of\npeople the new proposed inter circuit court\nis supposed to serve with 26 judges and sub-\n-16-\nstantially more complex litigation.\nPRAYERS\nThat since the instant case deals with actionable\njudicial misconduct of which there is a paucity\nof cases reaching this court and since the tangen-\ntial material in these papers buttresses his\npleadings, that the honorable court grant certiorari,\nhear the case on the merits andreverse the First\nCircuit Court in 82-1519 with instructions that\nthat Affidavit should have been allowed.\nIn the alternative, recall the mandates in\nboth 81-1782 and its companion case 82-1519 and\nhear both on the merits.\nIn the more remote alternative, consider\nto prove or disprove your petitioner's views on\npoor judgepersonship by recalling Zarrilli vs.\nCapitol Bank et al. and deciding on the merits\nwhether the Mass. Appeals Court and Mass. Supreme\nJudicial Court erred.\nRespectfully submitted,\nThe Petitioner, pro se\nVincent F. Zarrilli\nBox 101, 4 Garden Court\nBoston, MA 02113\n(617) 523-9210\n(617) 723-7163\n-17-\nStudy Possible of Plan to Create Floating\nNSIDE:\nCity looks for funds from tax-exemp\nNorth End Parking Facility\nsponsor an odd collection of bills\nCOPY\nAn unusual proposal to solve current parking\native Salvatore DiMasi and Boston City Councillor\nproblems in the North End by converting an old\nRobert Travaglini have sent letters to Boston\naircraft carrier to a convention center and\nMayor Raymond Flynn over the last seven\n2,500-car garage at Sargent's Wharf has resurfaced\nmonths, urging the city to examine Zarrilli's study\nagain and is actually being contemplated by the\nproposal. Last week, traffic and parking depart-\nTHE . BOSTON\ncity traffic and parking department.\nment official Ted Slegel said the city will take a\nNorth End resident and businessman Vincent\nclose look at Zarrilli's proposal soon to determine\nZarrilli, with the support of several state and local\nwhether to hire a consultant to perform an in-\nelected officials, is urging the city to consider\ndepth feasibility study. Siegel estimates the study\nfunding a feasibility study to examine a plan to\ncould cost as much as $40,000. Zarrilli also adds\nPRESERV\nTAB\nmoor an obsolete aircraft carrier in Boston Har-\nhe will seek the contract for the feasibility study\nbor at Sargent's Wharf, located between Union\nif it is put out to bid by the city.\nand Lewis Wharf. Zarrilli's plan calls for convert-\nZarrilli believes his aircraft carrier plan could\ning the vessel's three-story hangar deck into a\nsolve the North End's acute parking shortage,\n\"small convention center\" and turning the ship's\nwhich he claims has dealt fatal blows to many\nlower decks into a \"low-cost\" parking facility.\nsmall neighborhood businesses. Zarrilli says 17\nZarrilli claims an unused aircraft carrier could be\nbusinesses on Salem Street have gone out of bus-\nobtained free of charge from the U.S. Navy.\niness in the last four years because of the city's\nState Senator Michael LoPresti, State Represent-\nsee North End, page B-1\nDecember 4, 1984\nVel.4,No.14\n1\n72 pages\nDiMasi believes Zarrilli's latest plan has \"obvious\nNorth End\ndrawbacks,\" but has nevertheless asked the city to look\nat it. \"I will look at anything to find a solution to the\nparking problem in the North End,\" he says. \"The air-\ncontinued from page 12\ncraft carrier would be unsightly, might cause more traf-\nfic conjestion and wouldn't fit in with the historical\n\"stringent ticketing policy and lack of parking space.\"\nZarrilli, who says he has \"a knack for bringing pro-\ncharacter of the North End, but I want the city to study\nthe overall parking problem in the area.\"\nducts into existence that never existed before,\" lob-\nSiegel, who notes that Zarrilli's parking plan was\nbled city officials unsuccessfully in 1978 to consider\nrebuffed during former mayor Kevin White's admin-\nusing a converted aircraft carrier as a floating prison.\nistration, says the city \"ought to either fish or cut halt\"\nHe is currently pressuring federal and state trans-\non the plan. \"Let's really honestly look at is,\". he says.\nportation officials to consider building a second deck\n'If it looks feasible, we'll look into it more.\"\non the central artery as an alternative to the plan cur-\nStegel adds that his department will examine the cost\nrently before the U.S. Congress to fund the depression\nof transporting an alecraft carrier to Boston; how the\nof the expressway. Zarrilli has also been petitioning\nvessel would be moored; the COM of converting it to\nselected members of the U.S. Senate to introduce legis-\na parking facility and convention center, and how\nlation that would create a U.S. Court of Appeals to re-\nmuch revenue it would generate for the city.\nduce the caseload of the U.S. Supreme Court.\nPHOTO PATREE FLEECH\nState Representative Selvatore DiMasi wants the city to look at a solution to the North End's\nparking shortage.\nunrelated Miterial\nre- Zaurible\nAPRIL 18, 1984\nNORTH END/WATERPRONT REVIEW\nPAGE 11\nCarrier convention center proposed\nNorth End resident Vincent\nБазек or Hanoook Class Car-\nZarrilli, who in early 1983\nrier exceeded on billion dol-\nproposed converting . moth-\nI\nballed aircraft carrier into a\nCounting all the deck\nprison facility and placing It in\nspace, the entire area to be\nBoston Harbor, is at it again.\nutilized might be between\nThis time It's a convention\n25-30 acres. Consider the\ncenter he's after.\npresent day value of just three\nFor Zarrilli, this is the third\nor four acres right on the\nattempt he has made to bring\nBoeton waterfront.\na carrier to the harbor. in 1979\nRetail business in the\nhe proposed using a carrier as\nNorth End has been steadily\na parking garage.\ndropping for eight consecut-\nAlthough Zarrilli's previous\ntve years. As more ground\ntwo proposels haven't penned\nfloor stores are converted to\nout, he's not discouraged as\nhousing, the area is losing the\nis evident by a third proposal\ncharm of its ethnic character\ncalling for a feasibility study\nwhich continued unchecked,\nof a multiple purpose project\nwill be a loss to the entire\nalmed at solving a multipli-\nmetropolitan area. The park-\ncity of problems in the North\ning problem (ticketing, tow-\nEnd/Waterfront section of\ning, booting) which has die-\nBoston.\nsuaded hundreds of thous-\nWhat Zarrilli is seeking is\nanda of regulars from visiting\nthe conversion of a carrier into\nthe North End la the core of\na combination small convent-\nthe problem. A lost cost, $1\nIon center-low cost parking\nper day, would seem to be the\ngarage in the water area\nonly means of correction.\nShown above is a sketch of what North End resident Vincent Zerrifill's proposal to convert an strergth\ncarrier into a convention center would look like. The plan has been submitted to Mayer Ray Plynn and\nbetween Union and Lewis\nOnly a amail portion of bus-\nother local politicians for their support of the plan to place a carrier between Union and Lewis Wherves.\nWharves.\nIncesse cen survive on real-\nZarrilli claims the following\ndent's purchases. The high\npoints of his proposal should\ncost of housing virtually elimi-\nbe weighed very carefully:\nnates discretionary income.\nThe convention center\nThe resident aticker pro-\ncould be housed in the hanger\ngram, while welcomed by\ndeck with contains approxi-\nmost residents, has exacer-\nmately 80,000 aquare feet and\nbated retail business losses.\nexceeds three stories in\nOne of the possibilities of this\nheight for about 180,000 sq.\nproposal If determined feast-\nft. of exhibit space.\nbis is to transfer all resident\nBelow are five decks which\nsticker parking to the carrier\nthe study might reveal could\nand meter all the streets, thus\nprovide space for about 2500\nproviding the city with sub-\nvehicles Including the many\nstantial additional income and\nchartered tourist buaes which\nfostering retail business sim-\npresently clog already con-\nultaneously.\ngested city streets from April\nThe bottom line to the\nuntil November.\nconvention Industry on a na-\nThe earlier proposals for\ntional level is that most con-\npurposes of the study were\nvention centers have embark-\nnever evaluated by qualified\ned on expension plans and in\npersons. in each case govern-\nalmost all cases must go\nmental employees with no\nfather out to the outskirte of a\nsuccessful entrepreneurial\ncity to acquire a site. Con-\nskills were left to make the\nventioneers prefer to stay in\ndecision; hence, the conspt\nthe city. This proposel, If\nwith Its somewhat massive\nfeasible, enables visitors to\ndimonsions Intimidated the\nstay right where the action is\ndecision makers. The \"natest\"\nand literally walk from the\napproach was to say no. To\nproposed site to the Old North\nthe best of my knowledge, no\nChurch, Paul Revere's House,\nunrelated material\ninput was ever solicited from\nOld Ironsides, Bunker Hill,\nthe founding executives of\nQuincy Market, Hotels and\nany major corporations.\nDowntown Crossing.\nThrough a provision in the\nZarrilli has submitted his\nre V1 Zavribli\nU.S. Code, 10 USC 7309\nplane to Mayor Ray Flynn and\n(1969), 8 governmental entity\nother local politicians seeking\nmay acquire a surplus vossel\nsupport for the carrier conver-\nat no charge from the U.S.\nalon proposal. Thus far, no\nNavy. The cost to the govern-\none has openly supported or\nment back in the forties for an\ncompletely lossed our to\nPRESERV\nCOPY"
}