We are the new folks on the block and took a look at the papers and other things available on what is happening with Rev. Dr. Robert Bennett. They have asked that we make everything public and transparent for all and any to read and learn from. This is a very ugly development in this society and it is beginning to destroy many families.
We Want to start our part of this investigation with a correction. As we looked at the papers, we found that Rev. Bennett was picked up and forced into Mass General Hospital the first time on March 3rd on a section 12 which was signed off on by Dr. Rebecca Warner, a psychiatrist. What was amazing to us about that was Dr. Warner’s statement, included with the section 12, apparently to cover her rear, that she had never met Rev. Bennett, never examined him, never been to his home and yet she signed a paper for the police to pick him up immediately and incarcerate him in a hospital since he was such a threat to the public by virtue of either – according to what you can do under a section 12 – a psychotic break which was public and that break was threatening to bring harm to the public, alcoholic problems causing Rev. Bennett to threaten the public, drug overdose because of which he was threatening the public, attempted and threatened suicide – I think you get the drift of what this section 12 is about. You can also see how it was misused and was abuse of the court, the police, the law itself and especially of Rev. Bennett.
Dr. Bennett is a quiet, shy, hard working, retired Episcopal priest who works with his wife in their home building a business geared to helping others. He does not smoke, drink, take drugs, and has never had even a hint of mental problems. So what is it Dr. Warner found so threatening about Rev. Bennett that he had to be immediately picked up by the police and incarcerated in Mass General Hospital? SCES had never met the Bennett/Donaldson family – except for a five minute visit where two of their people claimed to be “friends” come to visit with the couple. They had not assessed their home; had no contact with the family on any kind of professional or semi-prefessional basis; had not put in place any program the family was required to follow and had deviated therefrom, – the Bennett/Donaldsons had no contact with SCES at all. SCES had done none of the things their program puts in place requiring them to do before taking such a drastic step as sending the police to remove a man – well known and well respected in his community – from his home.
That is how the Nazi’s were able to fill the concentration camps during the early days of their reign before it became clear what they were about and the need for that kind of subterfuge was over. The Gestapo arrived, knocked on the door or broke it down, took out the person for whom they had come and “incarcerated” them locally before moving them to concentration camps. The parallel to what happened to Rev. Bennett and what SCES had planned for his future is startling in its parallels.
The second time Rev. Bennett was picked up by the police and forcibly taken out of his home was March 6th – after the section 12 was lifted by Mass General Hospital on March 4th at about 3am and he was sent home.
Not being able to incarcerate Rev. Bennett on a section 12, the Somerville Cambridge Elder and Protective Services tried to incarcerate him on a section 19. It does not track that one must remove a man from his home immediately because of the reasons described above and then two days later after that does not stick they are back to attempt to remove him and keep him incarcerated on other charges.
That was the March 6th time he was demeaned by being forced from his home by the police. During these two times the police were always all white and it was always a sick, vicious kind of event calling the neighbors attention to that infamous couple – you know, the African Americans who are probably the only such family in that neighborhood.
The section 19 claims that Rev. Bennett had to be immediately removed from his home because of the threat to his life by his wife. The claim was that Rev. Bennett was so abused by his wife he had to be immediately removed and incarcerated in Mass General Hospital for his own protection and there was no one else around to help him so they had to move immediately. If that was the threat – why was the section 19 not called for before they activated the section 12? One answer is – we have found a couple African American men treated in the same way by the same people.
Now lets see! As to the claim of no one else who could “protect” Rev. Bennett from all of this.
At that time – his adult children were visiting because Rev. Bennett was just home from brain surgery at Mass General. Before they arrived, several friends visited with food, etc. for the family and so much more, but you get the picture. Attorney O’Sullivan representing his clients SCES were building a story out of whole cloth to justify where they were going and to lay the ground work for what comes next so they would be in the winning seat. – which from what we see – that means someone else is losing their lives, their assets, their immediate family and friends and so much more.
After five weeks, Rev. Bennett was returned to his home by SCES to once again live with this wife who was declared by SCES to be so incredibly abusive they had to remove him and incarcerate him and force him to stay in bed lying on an alarm type blanket, only allowed to go from his bed to the chair next to his bed, in a “cell” which was about 7 feet by 9 feet with hospital equipment stored in back of his bed sharing that space with him. What happened to the extreme threat his wife posed to his life?
We give you that background because Rev. Bennett’s wife – Marceline Donaldson – and everyone else thought Rev. Bennett had been picked up by the police to be incarcerated twice under a section 12. The above scenario is unbelievably worse and the arrogance of the court, the police, Dr. Warner and all those involved for doing this and thinking they would get away with it as the beginning of the attempt to strip that family of all its assets, its family relationships, its everything, just boggles the mind. The courts may not have been doing its job and seemed to be more going along with the program, but our investigation is not yet complete so lets keep that door open. We have seen the many lies told to the court on behalf of SCES and no one called to account – so lets keep that door open also.
The abusiveness shown by SCES during all of this with its supporting people preferring to live in an ignorance and claimed unknowingness, allowing all of this to go on seems to be varied – for some it is greed, for some extreme racism, for some the racism which pushed them to go along to get an African American family out of that Harvard Square/Brattle Street neighborhood, for some their career in this ‘guardianship’-‘protective agency’ area and on it goes.
The latest in this true life story is the hearing Rev. Bennett and Marceline Donaldson just went through because, at Rev. Bennett’s request, his attorney of record filed a motion with the court to withdraw as his attorney.
Rev. Bennett asked her to withdraw as his attorney because throughout all of this he, in actual fact, did not have an attorney. He had never met her, she never attempted to contact him, any papers from the court were not sent by her to Rev. Bennett, his wife, his family – so they knew nothing about any appearances, motions, anything that involved Rev. Bennett and so any court actions were allowed to run rampant and always have as the result a “win” for the SCES side.
This group seemed to be setting in place a legal structure to be able to control, wipe out financially, destroy the life and future of Rev. Bennett – attempt alienation of affection between him and his wife and other family members and so much more. And Rev. Bennett had who he considered a “place holder” as an attorney.
That all came to a head when Rev. Bennett was able to get out of the hospital after five weeks; recovered from what was a gruesome ordeal which seriously compromised his health; and he tried to file a motion with the Court which was circulated to many of you – however, they heard nothing from the court.
The hearing on Rev. Bennett’s attorney of record happened this past Monday, June 8th via telephone – which is how such things are being done in this pandemic space. – Judge Gargas in Middlesex Family and Probate Court was the presiding judge
The pleadings for the hearing were sent to the court and a copy of them follows:
———- Original Message ———-
From: THE BETTINA NETWORK <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: June 7, 2020 at 8:20 PM
Subject: Robert Bennett hearing MI 20 P 1699
For: Emily A Mahoney [mailto:email@example.com]
Pleadings for: Rev. Dr. Robert A. Bennett, Jr.
I am asking that Attorney Myette be allowed to withdraw from any motions, or any other court actions or documents. on which she is named as the attorney for Robert Bennett.
I have never met Attorney Myette, have not talked to her until recently when I contacted Attorney Myette and asked her to withdraw as my attorney on any actions on which she is listed as attorney for Robert Bennett.
I have the right to exercise my rights to choose the attorney with whom I want to work. My wife asked Attorney Myette to withdraw when she was informed by Attorney Myette in a telephone call that she had been appointed as my attorney, However, since I was in the hospital with no telephone or other access and was not allowed to contact my wife and she was not allowed to contact me, I was not able to follow through on that request and my wife was not allowed to.
Attorney Myette was appointed as my attorney at a hearing about March 5th about which I knew nothing and so was not able to respond.
Attorney O’Sullivan asked the court for that hearing which he characterized as an “emergency hearing” and told the court damage would come to Robert Bennett if the hearing was not allowed and Attorney O’Sullivan asked that the hearing be ex parte. The court complied.
Since Attorney O’Sullivan used that hearing to set in place much of what happened following that hearing – that essentially robbed me of more than my rights some of which are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
The law says I had, as others have, the right to be notified of that hearing. There are exceptions, but they do not include an ex parte hearing which does the substantial things which that hearing accomplished at my expense. What was presented to the court as an emergency hearing was not. It was a way to get your issues before the court without any challenge to those issues so you can get the result you would like at the expense of the other party.
That hearing should not have happened. It was a waste of the court’s time, resources and reputation. In fact, none of what has happened to me and my family over the past several months should have happened.
Attorney O’Sullivan represented me to the judge as being “indigent”. That representation allowed the judge to appoint Ms. Myette as attorney to represent me. She came from the CDSC which supplies attorneys to people who are “indigent” and could not afford an attorney without that help.
For Attorney O’Sullivan to tell such a lie to the court – which he knew or should have known was not true – that deprived someone else who needed that kind of help from getting it and it made me complicit – without my knowledge – of cheating the tax payers of Massachusetts who expected their money to go to help others and not to promote whatever game was being played by Attorney O’Sullivan or by Somerville Cambridge Elder and Protective Services at Attorney O’Sullivan’s expense.
Attorney Myette was appointed as my attorney because of Attorney O’Sullivan’s lies to the court – presenting as facts to the court statements he knew or should have known were false.
Those lies could have been responded to at that time and the record corrected if I had known there was such a hearing and I would have had the attorney of my choice representing me in that presentation. The ex parte hearing was quite illegal and violated laws put in place to make sure things like this do not happen.
Attorney O’Sullivan asked the court for an emergency hearing. What was happening with me at the time he described someone who needed to be immediately removed from his home by the police 0 for the second time in the same week and only two days apart?
My adult son and daughter were visiting from Washington, D. C. and they came because I was just out of the hospital from brain surgery and they came to be of help and to make sure I had whatever I needed that they could provide.
There was clearly no emergency – to ask for such and appoint an attorney to represent someone he presented to the court as “indigent” is something we have tried unsuccessfully to correct.
What Attorney O’Sullivan did not tell the court was that two days before Attorney O’Sullivan asked for this “emergency hearing” he sent police to my home – eight white policemen with five or six EMT people to remove this African American man from his home in such a theatre/circus setting that people came running to my home from the Charles River. To do this Attorney O’Sullivan on behalf of SCES claimed I was either having a psychotic break in public; was publicly drunk and causing an upheaval and upset of the public; or I was overdosed on drugs and causing havoc publicly; or I was threatening suicide and needed to be put under observation, etc. All things that come under the section 12 removal of a person from their home. I was none of these things. I have never had the hint of any mental problems – although at the moment that action by SCES has left my reputation in shreds, do not drink, do not smoke, do not take drugs.
I was removed and forced into Mass General Hospital on March 3rd after they actually had orders to take me to Mount Auburn Hospital. Mass General Hospital lifted the section 12 on March 4th at about 3:30am and sent me home telling me I should not have been picked up in the first place. I spent most of the time in the hospital waiting to see the psychiatrist because they were so busy.
At about 3:30am I was discharged from Mass General Hospital with no medicines prescribed and all vitals normal with no high blood pressure.
The day before I was picked up and forced into Mass General Hospital a policeman came to my home about 9:30pm to do a “wellness check”. He reported back that all was well and he saw nothing out of line.
With that background and my adult children at home with me Attorney O’Sullivan claimed an emergency on behalf of his clients Somerville Cambridge Elder and Protective Services who had been running all around town, the hospital and trying to talk to doctors and others to build a case against me so they could force me out of my home and into a space where I would be under their care and that was a total disaster. They were not able to build a case so they created one through lies, deceptions and actions which are reflected in the affidavit Ms. Nora Al Wetaid filed with the emergency motion Attorney O’Sullivan requested on behalf of SCES.
SCES through Attorney O’Sullivan went on to make several representations which were not true and could have been responded to at that time, if I had known such a hearing was happening in the court and that could have been done with attorneys of my choice. My wife and I having worked on civil rights cases for decades – not as attorneys – but as helpers when people had short money and needed such help – we had some idea of what to do and how to do it. We were not allowed to do anything except be recipients of the worse abuse I have ever experienced.
Because Attorney O’Sullivan knew or should have known that I was not “indigent”, Attorney Myette would not have been appointed in the first place making it possible for her to use her time to work with someone else who needed her help and would have been in tough shape legally without an attorney.
if Attorney O’Sullivan had properly represented the truth to the court what has followed almost destroying my life, my family, my work and more would not have happened.
Attorney Myette was appointed by the court because she was next on the list of the Boston Legal Services (the CDSC) organization which makes available the names of attorneys available and willing to work for those who are “indigent” or close thereto.
The client whom Attorney O’Sullivan represented. Somerville Cambridge Elder and Protective Services knew definitely I was not “indigent”, but apparently represented to Attorney O’Sullivan that I was and represented such to the court. If Attorney O’Sullivan had done a minuscule amount of due diligence, as all attorneys are expected to do he would have known they were lying.
That client also represented much more to the court which was also not true and the court moved along making decisions based on those misrepresentations, some outright lies and it has resulted in many being hurt and their lives turned upside down unnecessarily.
so, to summarize: – to get an emergency motion Attorney O’Sullivan on behalf of his client Somerville Cambridge Elder Services
1) lied to the court multiple times and serious lies which we feel would rise to the level of perjury if investigated by law enforcement for such.
2) kept from the court the fact that I had already been seen and discharged by Mass General Hospital on SCES’ first claim attempting to get me incarcerated.
Since that failed they then took the route of ruining my wife’s reputation by claiming she abused me and taking me out of my home on a section 19 which was totally untrue and unbelievably painful for my wife and for myself. We didn’t know about the section 19 – we thought it was a second section 12 because the police when they came to force me out of my house – dragging me out if necessary – refused to give me or my wife a copy of the order giving the police permission to do what they did.
3) SCES had the report from a policemen which was positive after he was asked to make a wellness check the evening before they first forced me out of my house.
4) They also kept from the court the fact that my adult children were visiting from Washington D. C. would be with me for several days because they came following my surgery to help with any care I might need.
5) In addition, the psychiatrist – Dr. Rebecca Warner who signed the section 12 added to the document that she had never met me – never examined me – never been to my house yet she called it “unsafe” – never had any interactions with me at all. She signed it at the urgings of Ms. Noral Al Wetaid and Ms. Angela Clary who already clearly had been lying to make their case.
Given all of the above why is Somerville Cambridge Elder and Protective Services called in to vote on whether or not Attorney Myette should be allowed to withdraw?
I could go on for pages on all the things they did which violate laws, the truth and more but the above gives a good look into what they are about. They did a lot more and hopefully it will all be revealed to the court shortly.
Additionally, why is Maliça Aronowitz being given a vote?
One of the things Attorney O’Sullivan did on behalf of his clients Somerville Cambridge Elder and Protective Services, was to ask the court to invalidate my current Health Care Proxy which had been created for me by MGH.
The court obliged and invalidated the MGH Health Care Proxy and validated a Health Care Proxy which had been invalidated November 18, 2019 by being replaced by a proxy created for me by Probate Attorney Donald McInnis. Attorney McInnis created that Health Care Proxy for me at my request because I discovered about that time that Malica Aronowitz had a Health Care Proxy in my name which named her as my Health Care Proxy. I knew nothing about that Health Care Proxy. I wanted and named my wife as my health care proxy.
Attorney McInnis did just that and that HCP was witnessed and signed by Attorney McInnis and Ms. Trudi Van Slyck, both people I have known for many years who are substantial and long time members of this community. It was signed with all three of us together in my dining room on November 18, 2019. I have statements from both to that affect.
At Mass General Hospital, my wife and I gave an MGH staff person my Health Care Proxy which named Marceline Donaldson as my Health Care Proxy. We have been married happily for 36 years and have always taken care of each other. She is who I wanted as my Health Care Proxy. She is who went all over town trying to get treatment for me after it became clear something was wrong and she is who found Dr. David Pilgrim, Chief Neurologist at Brigham and Women’s in Jamaica Plain who, in spite of his being in an emergency position with the death of his wife’s father, made us comfortable enough with directions which led us to Mass General Hospital for brain surgery.
That happened in spite of the fact that the physician who was my PCP – Dr. Kehlman – could not see us because he was going off on vacation and would see me when he returned; did not have anyone else in his group to send us to; and did not know a neurologist to refer us to. That PCP was my PCP because Maliça Aronowitz insisted he was who I needed as a PCP.
This is who this court invalidated a perfectly legal and legitimate Health Care Proxy which was identical to the Health Care Proxy created for me by Probate Attorney Donald McInnis except for one character from MGH -this is who was put in charge of my health.
That Health Care Proxy replaced the one Attorney Donald McInnis created for me because MGH was concerned for our safety seeing people all over the hospital investigating us and they didn’t know why.
SCES knew and Attorney O’Sullivan should have known this was why the Attorney McInnis’ Health Care Proxy was replaced. It had a one character typo. The Health Care Proxy was the same and so was everything else.
In the SCES affidavit of Ms. Nora Al Wetaid she goes to some length to create the picture of this MGH Health Care Proxy not being valid because of numbers she gives which she claims made me not able to comprehend what I was signing at the moment.
MGH does not create Health Care Proxies and have people sign them who are “incapacitated” and don’t know what they were signing. I was quite aware of what was happening, was happy MGH took such an interest.
I was concerned because with that kind of concern from SCES about my ability to comprehend when it was about my Health Care Proxy, they were totally able to question me extensively when I was very groggy, just out from under oxygen and didn’t really know who they were or what they wanted until a nurse told me the next day when I asked who that person was who made me so uncomfortable.
The lack of empathy which allowed Ms. Clary to move on someone to attempt to question them in detail when they are just out of brain surgery to attempt to prove something which would benefit Ms. Clary and Ms. Al Wetaid – which today in retrospect was clearly trying to find reasons to take me away from my home and family so SCES would have a case to follow and work on is beyond what should be happening if people are qualified for their jobs.
So questioning me under the fog of oxygen when I was not quite conscious was acceptable because SCES people were doing it and the Health Care Proxy which had been signed months earlier with the MGH proxy having changed only one character and kept the same health care proxy was not acceptable.
That goes along with the environment in which they work where if you send a complaint to SCES about something like the above it is investigated by the people against whom you have complained. It is their standard working procedure.
This same group claimed I was incapacitated and should go immediately to a nursing home and that I was in such bad shape not even technological assistance could help. That was a lie. That would have ruined and denied me the rest of my life. They have no response to that except to keep destroying lives and families.
I was kept by them in MGH for five weeks, forced to take 10 to 15 pills per day of over the counter medication, given hallucinatory drugs and so much more forcing me to stay in bed for five weeks only able to go from the bed to a chair in a space some 7 by 9 feet including hospital equipment.
When I was sent home by them I could barely walk – could not walk without a walker and support by two people one on each side – and was sent home in my stocking feet because my feet were too swollen for shoes. That is what happened to me under their care. I was kept away from my wife who was treated abominably and only allowed to see me three times during five weeks and then only with a Security Guard present. Before that we had not been separated except for two days to a funeral in 36 years. It was one of the most difficult times in my life. I now know what it is like to grieve the loss of your spouse. Sadly, if they could do it again they would – and – because this has been so public we have received many calls from people who have experienced the same thing – all African Americans – and a couple left the state to get away from the Protective Services people.
When I was forced into MGH for the second time on March 6th I was walking, talking, enjoying life, enjoying my family, doing all the things I had been doing before going into MGH. When I left, my life was in shatters and so much more. It took coming back to my family to be able to experience life as an independent person walking, talking, participating in life, picking up my research and so much more. They attempted to destroy everything I had ever done starting with my reputation.
So why does SCES get to say whether or not Attorney Myette should not be allowed to withdraw?
I am in the process of making plans to move ahead with court actions and have talked to several attorneys about representing me. Two called the court and were told I already had an attorney. They called Attorney Myette for some clarification in the process of their due diligence before taking on representing me, but Attorney Myette did not return the telephone calls. That did not inspire confidence in the attorneys that this was a case they should take.
I am asking this court for a clear path to be able to have the attorneys of my choice by approving Attorney Myette’s motion to withdraw from whatever court action in which she is acknowledged as the attorney for Robert Bennett.
Please confirm Attorney Myette’s motion to withdraw.
I have never met Attorney Myette in person. I talked to her on the telephone for the first time after I sent her an email telling her I would like her to withdraw as my attorney and that was just days ago. And in-between times Attorney. Myette did nothing for me so if she does not continue I will not be any worse off than I was when she was my attorney.
Please allow Attorney Myette’s motion to withdraw.
Robert A. Bennett Marceline Donaldson
617 497 9166 617 497 9166
Robert Bennett talked and dictated
Marceline Donaldson typed
In addition to the above pleading by Rev. Bennett – Marceline Donaldson submitted a pleading to the court asking that Rev. Bennett’s attorney be allowed to withdraw.
That pleading follows:
———- Original Message ———-
From: THE BETTINA NETWORK <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: June 8, 2020 at 7:31 AM
Subject: My statement for Attorney Myette’s motion to withdraw MI 20 P 1699
I join my husband’s request to allow Attorney Myette to withdraw from representing him on any and all motions which may have been filed on which Attorney Myette is listed as attorney for Robert Bennett.
Attorney James O’Sullivan asked for an “emergency hearing” around March 5, 2020 which he also asked to be heard “ex parte”. Attorney Myette was appointed attorney for Robert Bennett by the court at that hearing.
To get the result, Attorney O’Sullivan obtained Attorney O’Sullivan misrepresented Robert Bennett to the court as “indigent” when he knew or should have known that was not true. Attorney O’Sullivan made many representations to the court in the process of that “emergency hearing” which were not of the truth, but of lies which would allow him to block the possibility of Robert Bennett and his family hiring an attorney of his or their choice to represent Robert Bennett.
In addition, Attorney O’Sullivan misrepresented the situation he claimed to be trying to prevent by lying to the court about his need for an “emergency hearing” because of the claimed danger which he claimed would happen to Robert Bennett if the court did not intervene.
Robert Bennett was not in a situation which would have required an ’emergency hearing’ and the intervention of the police to remove Robert Bennett from his home against his will with the police, apparently, given the right to break into Robert Bennett’s home and forcibly remove him even if Robert Bennett objected to his removal from his home and family. If Robert Bennett objected he was to be carried out of his house against his will any way possible. That is what the police told Robert Bennett’s family if they intervened and prevented them from taking Robert Bennett out of his home of 36 years.
Before this hearing, Massachusetts General Hospital had already ‘lifted’ a section 12 filed against Robert Bennett by Attorney O’Sullivan on behalf of his clients just two days prior. That section 112 was removed with “no medicines prescribed” and “all vitals normal including blood pressure” along comments by individuals in the emergency room – doctors and nurse practitioners – that Robert Bennett should not have been picked up under a section 12.
A policeman, the evening before this forced incarceration happened on March 3rd, was called by SCES and directed to do a “wellness check.” He found nothing out of order.
Robert Bennett’s two adult children were at home with him to be there if he needed anything and to help with any care Robert Bennett needed because Robert Bennett was just out of MGH after brain surgery from the second of two falls months apart because of eye surgery – the first to remove a cataract and it was unsuccessful in restoring Robert Bennett’s vision and the second destroyed Robert Bennett’s peripheral vision in his left eye.
The psychiatrist, on behalf of the SCES signed for the section 12 and at the same time she was signing for police to force Robert Bennett from his house and incarcerate him in the hospital, she included deniability in case she was wrong in her signing such a document. This psychiatrist added to the section 12 that she had never met Robert Bennett, never examined him, never been to his home and yet she declared his home “unsafe.”.
In addition, neither had Attorney O’Sullivans’ clients, the SCES, had any contact with the family nor with Robert Bennett beyond a five minute visit which was billed as “friends” visiting Robert Bennett calling to make sure he was fine. They found a man in very good shape, having a dessert of ice cream in his bed/sitting room.
There was no consultation with the family by SCES, no telephone calls for an appointment to assess the house for its safety or lack thereof, nothing with Robert Bennett except intruding on his recovery from brain surgery by appearing in his hospital room when he had just been removed from oxygen after surgery and interrogating him for a very long period of time. In spite of the above, SCES pushed into Robert Bennett’s life with claims that are not true, but made to justify their attempt to intervene and take over directing his life and its decisions. On information and belief this is something SCES has done several times with other African Americans and with others with horrendous results for the people with whom they became so involved.
During the “emergency hearing” Attorney O’Sullivan asked the court to invalidate a valid Health Care Proxy created by Mass General Hospital with that HCP based on the one Robert Bennett asked Probate Attorney Donald McInnis to create for him because Robert Bennett discovered from Beth Israel Hospital people that they would not speak to his wife about him because his “Health Care Proxy” asked them not to. That was the point at which Robert Bennett discovered there was a Health Care Proxy that he knew nothing about, did not sign and nominated a health care proxy he did not want making decisions about his health.
In spite of that, and with SCES knowing the Health Care Proxy they were asking the court to validate as the Health Care Proxy which would be over Robert Bennett -and – with SCES knowing it was not one Robert Bennett wanted, – and – with SCES knowing that Health Care Proxy had been invalidated – even if it were legitimately created – by one Robert Bennett had a probate attorney create for him and one he signed November 18, 2019. In spite of knowing that and with Attorney O’Sullivan who knew or should have known that the court invalidated Robert Bennett’s Health Care Proxy and validated one he did not sign and did not want.
All of that and more was done in the “emergency hearing” Attorney O’Sullivan asked for and further asked that it be ‘ex parte’ without Robert Bennett being notified.
In that “emergency hearing” with all of its untruths presented to the court Attorney Myette was appointed to represent Robert Bennett.
During her representation of Robert Bennett as his attorney, she had one contact with Robert Bennett’s wife. None with Robert Bennett – she has never met Robert Bennett.
During the telephone call Attorney Myette made to Robert Bennett’s wife to notify her that she had been appointed Robert Bennett’s attorney by the court, Marceline Donaldson told Attorney Myette that Robert Bennett’s family would hire an attorney of their choice and she would appreciate Attorney Myette withdrawing so another attorney could take her place.
Other attorneys were hired by Robert Bennett’s family to represent him, none of whom could represent Robert Bennett because of the structure Attorney O’Sullivan put in place using a so called “emergency motion” to abuse the court, abuse the police, abuse the law for his clients – SCES.
Robert Bennett and his family have tried to file motions to remove those attempting to destroy the quality of his life, his life, his freedom and more. They have not been able to do anything because they were blocked by the fact that the court appointed attorney was acting more as a place saver keeping anything which SCES did not want to happen from happening than as an attorney working in her clients best interest.
Attorney Myette has not even met her client nor spoken to him from the time she was appointed until he recently contacted her and asked her to withdraw.
Attorney Myette agreed to withdraw, but needed court agreement and she said she would file the needed motion.
Why, in that motion, are people and organizations allowed to be involved with a decision which should be between Attorney Myette and Robert Bennett and not including the people who are benefitting financially and otherwise on the dishonest representations they have made to this court and to others to maintain their position “kneeling on Robert Bennett’s neck.”
I ask this court to please allow Attorney Myette to withdraw and not allow this theatre/circus which started with eight white policemen going to Robert Bennett’s home on March 3rd along with five or six EMT people, two ambulances, police cars all over the street with people running from the Charles River to see what was happening to demean, discharge, shame, defile, destroy Robert Bennett’s reputation and the work of his life by giving it this horrible ending.
Robert Bennett is 87 years old. He has lived a very healthy life with no hospital admissions and a large belief in natural remedies. He had no health problems, until Maliça Aronowitz inserted herself into his life with demands that he have his eyes operated on limiting his eye sight and destroying his peripheral vision causing him to fall twice and then telling stories multiplying those two falls caused by the eye surgeries into many characterizing Robert Bennett as not being able to live on his own outside of the most severe restrictions which he experienced at Massachusetts General Hospital, which almost cost Robert Bennett his life.
Because Robert Bennett went through those two eye surgeries trying to “go along to get along” with his step daughter who has been missing from our lives except a few hours dinner on Thanksgiving and a few hours dinner on Christmas until this past year, he should not be punished any further.
Attorney O’Sullivan also needs to be sanctioned because of the way he handled this and other cases in which he has been involved. His past cases need to be investigated as to exactly what happened. We have a couple names to offer of African Americans whose lives were destroyed and whose assets were taken by these machinations. They contacted us when they heard what was happening to Robert Bennett. They are the people taken up by SCES and supposedly “protected” by them to the point of ruining their lives. One has left the state trying to get away from SCES and its abuses.
Robert Bennett filed a motion with the court, but has never heard from the court as to a hearing for this motion. We wondered if Attorney Myette listed as attorney for Robert Bennett prevented such a motion filed by Robert Bennett from being heard.
Please allow Attorney Myette to withdraw and keep this motion to withdraw limited to the two people who are the only people/organizations who/which should be allowed to weigh in on this motion – Attorney Myette and Robert Bennett.
49 Hawthorn Street
Cambridge MA. 02138
617 497 9166
“deaf to our suffering as the institutional structures creating and changing the republic in which we live are debased.”
Judge Gargas refused to allow Rev. Bennett’s attorney to withdraw. She said she did not want to leave him without legal representation.
Since the reason Rev. Bennett asked his present attorney to withdraw was because he had been – in fact – without legal representation from the time she was first appointed, we did not understand the judge’s reasons for such a ruling.
She did mitigate that by saying when an attorney put in an appearance for Rev. Bennett this present attorney would be allowed to withdraw.
We were amazed at all of this because Rev. Bennett’s right to choose his own attorney was taken away from him from the time Attorney O’Sullivan asked for an emergency hearing and asked that Rev. Bennett not be notified. At the end of that hearing when everything was put in place to determine the outcome of this ugliness then and only then did the judge appoint an attorney to represent Rev. Bennett. That was done because Attorney O’Sullivan lied on behalf of SCES by claiming at the outset of his initial appearances that Rev. Bennett was “indigent.” That claim of being “indigent” gave Attorney O’Sullivan a free hand to absolutely carry out everything he wanted to do to move Rev. Bennett from the hospital to a nursing home where he would be classified as “incapacitated” where not even new technological interventions were possible to attempt to bring Rev. Bennett back to being able to be something other than a vegetable with no one around to support him, etc. so he had to be so incarcerated – according to Attorney O’Sullivan.
When Rev. Bennett’s family tried to get another attorney to represent Rev. Bennett that was not possible – and attorneys tend to be shy when there is another attorney of record that they have to plow through.
As we become more acquainted with all of this we are finding Rev. Bennett’s rights have been totally destroyed and mostly by the court – which really had the power to make this right and refused.
As we looked into the claim of Attorney O’Sullivan on behalf of Somerville Cambridge Elder Services – that there was no one around for Rev. Bennett and so they had no choice but to take over his life and everything in it – except his wife – it was stunningly arrogant for them to make that claim.
What are Rev. Bennett’s support groups?- Obviously his family, which includes his wife and two adult children who are involved with his life and do stay in contact with him.
In an emergency which Rev. Bennett or his family could not handle or for many other reasons, all Rev. Bennett had to do was to call his bishop. As a retired Episcopal priest you do have that possibility and you do have the organization of the Episcopal Church which supports its retired priests and from our investigation that is real support.
As a person who ministered at several churches both in the Greater Boston area and in Baltimore, MD. Rev. Bennett has a circle of friends who were parishioners at those churches who have stayed in touch with Rev. Bennett and his wife and who are very good friends and a supportive circle.
In addition, there are many friends who check in regularly and are there for anything the family needs and there is a reciprocal relationship where the Bennett/Donaldson family has been there for some of their needs.
During another hearing, we understand and have seen several letters from some of these friends submitted to the court.
That is a substantial community which few people have. But that is the person Somerville Cambridge Elder and Protective Services with the help of Attorney O’Sullivan had picked up by the police in an incredible and very ugly display in front of their home and incarcerated twice – for no reason.
When the first attempt at incarcerating Rev. Bennett failed, they tried again with massive lies which we have easily disproven and have given the family what we found – which is kind of massive if we say so ourselves.
What has happened is we are being shown that this society has a legal structure under which any one of us can be forced out of our homes by the police without cause and we will then have to spend our resources trying to get away from the horribleness of that and what comes after.
We started with some doubt about the claims we heard that this was a criminal conspiracy. Just this beginning of this investigation has shown those doubts were not justified. It looks to us clearly as a criminal conspiracy and it extends further than the Bennett family.
Please keep an open mind about all of this. You might need the help of what the Bennett/Donaldson’s have agreed to make public. Each step of their way through all of this will be made public so others can benefit.