Other Network Links

The following webpages won't be included in the links section of each webpage; however, they are active pages:

http://www.IPS-Notary.com/massachusetts-process-server.html

http://www.IPS-Notary.com/massachusetts-divorce-subpoena.html

Also, we have several other pages on the Internet that advertise our Network, including, but not limited to:

http://www.geocities.com/mass_notary/MA-Subpoena.html

http://www.geocities.com/massachusetts_process_server/

http://www.ma-network.org/

http://www.ma-process-server.com/

Each of the above-mentioned pages are in the process of being updated. Be sure to check the URL's often and if you have any suggestions, please contact me.

Constable Charged in Court Disruption

LEOMINSTER — A Fitchburg constable pleaded not guilty yesterday to charges of disrupting a court proceeding and disorderly conduct. The accusations stem from an alleged outburst at Housing Court in February.

Lorie A. Spaulding, 40, appeared in court as a litigant on Feb. 7. According to court records, she is a constable, responsible for serving legal papers such as divorce and eviction notices.

Ms. Spaulding was in Housing Court in Fitchburg and became disruptive after receiving an “unfavorable disposition” in a case in which she was a party, according to a report by Court Officer Robert V. Taylor. When the court began hearing a second case in which Ms. Spaulding was involved, she repeatedly interrupted Judge Diane Horan and was ordered to be taken into custody for being in contempt of court, Mr. Taylor wrote.

Ms. Spaulding refused to comply with the officer’s orders and tried to flee the courtroom, he said, ultimately being handcuffed on the ground. She was not injured, according to the report by Mr. Taylor.

The case is being heard in Leominster District Court to avoid a conflict of interest in Fitchburg, Judge John J. Curran ruled.

MA Police Officers can be forced to take lie detector test

The SJC ruled that a person who serves as a Police Officer in Massachusetts can be forced to take a lie detector test if the officer is being investigated for misconduct.

I completely agree with this law. If a police officer is performing his or her duties correctly, then why would they refuse to take a lie detector test? It will allow the public to have more faith and confidence in the police that serve and protect us.

No more false allegations or cases by those very few corrupt police officers out there in Massachusetts! Thank you SJC!

More on this topic later...............

Duty To Preserve Evidence

A party to litigation, or to litigation that is reasonably foreseeable, has a duty to preserve evidence in its possession or control that may be relevant. If a party destroys evidence in its custody or control it can be subject to sanctions that range from an assessment of costs and fees, to suppression of evidence, an adverse jury instruction, or even outright dismissal of the case.

The Superior Court recently ruled on a case in which a plaintiff alleged that a malfunctioning refrigerator, which was later destroyed by a nonparty, caused a fire. In that case, the Superior Court reiterated the general rule that, in Massachusetts, a nonparty has no duty to preserve evidence. See Quincy Mut. Ins. Co. v. W.C. Wood Co., Middlesex Superior Court, Civil Action No. 0402346 (June 6, 2007) (Gershengorn, J.). However, an exception to this rule is when a party to the litigation imposes an obligation on the nonparty to retain the evidence.

Specifically, if a party to a litigation wants a nonparty to retain certain evidence, the party must either issue a subpoena to the nonparty requesting the evidence or enter into a contract with the nonparty to maintain the evidence.

Although the case at issue involved product liability (the refrigerator), the court’s holding arguably applies to all evidence. Thus, not only does it apply to products, but it could apply to documents such as contracts, invoices, advertisements, e-mails, or any other evidence that would be relevant to the case.

As a result, if you are a party to a litigation, or even reasonably believe you will be a party to a litigation, and you know a nonparty has evidence that you will need to prove or defend the case, you or your attorney must take affirmative actions to ensure the nonparty has a duty to preserve the evidence.

Thank you Constables...

Thank you to all those who assisted our Network in apprehending the judgment debtors who had outstanding CAPIAS warrants with us. I'm proud to announce that out of the 13 people we were searching for, only three couldn't be located. All others were served and brought before the Court where the warrants were issued.

Thank you to the Constables and other officers authorized to serve civil process. You all worked quickly and professionally. Your service to the Massachusetts Notary Public & Legal Support Network is greatly appreciated.

I would also like to thank Ashley for stepping up and taking over for me in organizing and controlling this campaign. As you all know, an unprovoked situation happened with me and a family member on May 10th. On May 12th I had to be in Court and the whole ordeal screwed up my week. ---- Luckily, I won at Court! :-D --- Thank you so much Ashley!

Thanks,
Korey

Capias Enforcement Week

To all Civil Enforcement Officers of this Network:

The Massachusetts Notary Public & Legal Support Network will attempt to serve most of the oustanding capias warrants we have on file this week in the following cities/towns:

• Leominster
• Fitchburg
• Groton
• Lunenburg
• Ayer
• Lancaster

So, if you're a Constable, deputy sheriff, or other authorized Civil Enforcement Officer of this Network, please login and go to the Capias Warrant section of our members area to get the names of those we need to serve.

We need two people to cover each of the locations above. Ayer, Fitchburg, and Lancaster are covered because we already have two C.E.O.'s who will search for the subjects. Therefore we only need to cover Leominster, Groton, and Lunenburg.

Please search dilligently. If you encounter problems, don't be a hero, call the police and have them assist you.

If you can't locate someone you should ask around especially in the small Towns where everybody knows everyone else.

We will attempt service starting Monday May 12 thru Friday May 16th. For more information either contact me or call Korey at (978) 877-2536.

Thanks,
Ashley

P.S.: For those who don't already know, we have a new website dedicated to advertising our subpoena services and process server services. Go here to view it
http://www.ma-process-server.com/

Be Careful Before Reporting a Case Settled to the Court

Before a case is reported settled to the court, it is important to be sure that both the clients and the attorneys are aware of all terms that will ultimately be a part of the settlement agreement. In Basis Technology Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 71 Mass. App. Ct. 29 (2008), the Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to enforce a settlement agreement that consisted of an e-mail exchange between counsel on the third day of a trial. Specifically, in Basis Technology Corp., the parties reported the case settled to the court based on an e-mail exchange between counsel that outlined the terms of the settlement, but contemplated drafting an actual settlement agreement. Consequently, the trial court ended the trial and issued a dismissal nisi order. Despite the e-mail and the report of settlement, the parties were unable to agree on a written settlement agreement, and the court ultimately enforced the settlement as initially agreed in the e-mail.

In its decision, the court found that the mere fact that the parties needed to memorialize the settlement terms did not make the settlement incomplete and did not support an argument that the parties had not agreed on the essential business terms of the settlement. Thus, the Basis Technology court stood by a decision it made twenty years earlier when it stated that “if the parties have agreed upon all material terms, it may be inferred that the purpose of a final document which the parties agree to execute is to serve as a polished memorandum of an already binding contract.” Goren v. Royal Invs., Inc., 25 Mass. App. Ct. 137, 140 (1987).

A large factor in the court’s enforcement of the settlement agreement is that the parties had reported the matter settled to the court. As has been noted in several cases, enforcing settlement agreements that have been orally relayed to the court protects the integrity of the judicial process as well as the parties themselves. It allows courts to dismiss juries, clean up their dockets and prepare for the next case. It also allows parties to rely on the results of negotiations that they have had in coming to a settlement conclusion.