A list of legal misconduct, ethics violations, judicial misconduct and civil rights violations experienced by Howard and Andrea Fease in Rhode Island courts.

Read more on the legal battles regarding Hog Island!

Complaint One:  To:  Presiding Justice Joseph F. Rodgers, Jr.  Date: June 4, 2002  From: Howard R. Fease and Andrea M. Fease  Case: Newport Superior Case #NC 02-175, Allaire et al v. Fease & Fease

Dear Presiding Justice Rodgers:

We are writing you with the hope that further action will not become necessary involving one Justice Mark Pfeiffer of the Newport Superior Court. Our ordeal with this man began on April 5, 2002. We had always thought that a party was innocent until proven guilty and that the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof. However, in Mark Pfeiffer’s Court, that is untrue.  We are enclosing transcripts of Hearings held on April 5, 2002, May 6, 2002 and May 28, 2002, as well as the docket and a letter to the Judge’s good pal, Attorney Anthony DeSisto.  The following is a partial list of stunts this Judge has pulled:

• April 5, 2002: Hearing for Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Action: Motion Passed
• April 11, 2002: 3 days after the Defendants receive a copy, the passed order is now entered. No provision for Rule 5 or Rule 77F apply to this Court.
• May 6, 2002: Hearing for a TRO on a Order that was passed and then NEVER SERVED. Pfeiffer states that he will travel to Hog Island on May 8, 2002 to enforce a restraining order he passed and that was NEVER served. In the May 6, 2002 transcript, Attorney DeSisto admits on page 16 that he has never been on Hog Island.
• May 8, 2002: Judge Pfeiffer comes to Hog Island minus a reporter, recorder or any device to record what he says or does. Plaintiff Frederick Wilkinson is a member of the Bristol Harbor Commission, yet Judge Pfeiffer travels on a boat he is in charge of anyway. Later, a person advises the Defendants that he witnessed Pfeiffer and Fred Wilkinson talking prior to the Judge’s trip. Judge Pfeiffer sees that Attorney DeSisto lied on April 5, 2002. Pfeiffer’s answer – Attorney DeSisto’s words were "not on the record". After conferring with Attorney Borden, who took DeSisto’s place on the Hog Island visit, Judge Pfeiffer tells everyone that we will start all over on May 24, 2002.
• May 24, 2002: Suddenly this is a hearing for a Preliminary Injunction to cover his and DeSisto’s tracks on the passed TRO. Although Andrea Fease is a Defendant, and both Howard and Andrea Fease are pro se, she is not allowed to ask the witnesses any questions. The Defendants have ordered this transcript. He tells the Feases to return on May 28, 2002. The Feases tell him they cannot. He says too bad. When Howard Fease asks how come there is a TRO, and points out that we are the Defendants and that Attorney DeSisto has misrepresented the facts, Pfeiffer has him removed from the Court.
• May 28, 2002: His Honor settles the case with NO JURY or without any notice of a TRO to the Defendants. Despite the fact that the Defendants have filed Motions for Joinder, Dismissal, and an Objection to the TRO, none of this appears on the Docket. The Defendants sent every Motion with tracking, therefore Pfeiffer can’t weasel out that way.

Kindly read the transcript of May 28, 2002. Read page 10 where Pfeiffer is telling DeSisto to make sure (THIS TIME) that the order is served. Notice on the Docket for May 24^th it states "continued". We were put on Trial on that date. On the 28^th of May, Pfeiffer settled the case. He has stated for the record that the Plaintiffs have proven their case. He states we did not subpoena witnesses.

• Then why do we have Sheriffs’ Receipts?
• Why did Pfeiffer issue a Preliminary Injunction without a notice?
• Why was Pfeiffer on the Bristol Harbor Patrol Boat when a lead Plaintiff is Vice-Chairman of the Bristol Harbor Commission?
• Why did Pfeiffer not bring a stenographer?
• Why did Pfeiffer put the Defendants on Trial on May 24, 2002 for contempt of a TRO he passed?
• Why on May 28, 2002 did Pfeiffer institute a Preliminary Injunction in one instance, on the transcript, showing he was granting a prayer for relief, and on the Order, which he signed in 2 days flat again, ignoring the Rules of Civil Procedure, it states by motion? A motion the Defendants were never served, any more than they were served the TRO.
• Why doesn’t the docket show any of the Defendants’ Motion or their Counterclaim?
• Why is Pfeiffer ignoring anything the Defendants say? Because they are pro se?
• Why did Pfeiffer ignore and deprive the Defendants of their right to a Jury and instead did DeSisto’s bidding?
• Why, on Page 17 of the transcript of May 6, 2002, does Pfeiffer state, "I would welcome you to go to the Rhode Island Supreme Court?"
• In the transcript of May 28, 2002, page 3, suddenly the case is a Preliminary Injunction.
• Why on the April 5, 2002 transcript is the case Adverse Possession and now its Easement by Prescription?
• Why on Page 4, when he describes the standards, does he leave out EXCLUSIVE?

The facts speak loud and clear. We have appealed this matter. We further intend to file conduct charges and potentially Criminal Conduct Charges against this Corrupt Judge.  If ever a case cried out for removal of a Judge, this is it. If you don’t respond and remove him, then we will begin taking all legal steps at our disposal to see that no other person is ever subjected to this misconduct again. We will be bringing in further transcripts upon receipt, however the facts speak for themselves.   We have appealed this Preliminary Injunction, however every day that this farce of a proceeding stands will be another day added to the Complaint we intend to file against Mark Pfeiffer.  Thank you for your kind attention. We will await your written response.

Sincerely - Howard R. Fease and Andrea M. Fease

EMAIL Caught! right now!