A list of civil rights and ethics violations and judicial and prosecutorial misconduct experienced by an Unnamed Litigant in Rhode Island courts. Caught.net has removed the name of the litigant for unspecified reasons but has left the complaint up so others could learn from it.

Complaint One:  Mr. Unnamed Litigant asserts the following in this complaint:

Mr. Unnamed Litigant says he hired Atty. J. Ronald Fishbein for parole violation hearings on 9-1-99.  Atty. Fishbein agreed to $600 down with the balance due later.  Judge Dimitri was presiding.  The Assistant Attorney General and Atty. Fishbein went into chambers with Judge Dimitri.  Atty. Fishbein returned telling Mr. Unnamed Litigant there was, "nothing to worry about."  Atty. Fishbein stated clearly that "You [Unnamed Litigant] would NOT be found guilty of a parole violation."  Atty. Fishbein also made comments to the effect that "jail was NOT an option or consideration."  The court began calling cases and Atty. Fishbein requested the $600 retainer which Mr. Unnamed Litigant paid.

Mr. Unnamed Litigant ended up being held without bail and was baffled as to why.  Within days Mr. Unnamed Litigant found out Atty. Fishbein and Judge Dimitri had made some sort of deal in which Atty. Fishbein could recoup some monies owed him and would take Mr. Unnamed Litigant's money and then be allowed to withdraw from the case handing it over to the Public Defender's Office.  Atty. Fishbein handled other matters for Mr. Unnamed Litigant and was privy to several issues regarding Mr. Unnamed Litigant's assertions of being forced into taking pleas or pleading guilty to charges of domestic assaults and violations of restraining orders.   Mr. Unnamed Litigant had discussed with Atty. Fishbein at length regarding suing various officials [one being the Public Defender] regarding these assertions.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant had also voiced these issues on at least 3 occasions in open court.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant asserts he was manipulated into giving the only money he had to Atty. Fishbein which blocked him from being able to appropriate effective counsel and forced him to have counsel he already had serious issues with.

When Mr. Unnamed Litigant complained to Atty. Fishbein, he was repeatedly warned to not "stir up trouble" and to "follow instructions."  Atty. Dan Ciora, the public defender also told Mr. Unnamed Litigant he would not be violated and jail was not a consideration.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant was warned that if he got out of hand, he could go to jail.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant was told to "not complain, don't say anything and answer only exactly what he was asked."   Mr. Unnamed Litigant asserts this forced him into be led like a sheep to the slaughter.

Mr. Unnamed Litigant mailed several letters to Atty. Ciora detailing the facts of the case.  One letter was returned for postage due.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant asserts Atty. Ciora refused to read Mr. Unnamed Litigant's mailings, refused to investigate and refused to prepare properly to defend Mr. Unnamed Litigant.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant and Atty. Ciora's relationship was routinely contentious.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant wanted issues raised like:

• false allegations of shootings called into the police that resulted in a SWAT team coming to arrest Mr. Unnamed Litigant in 1993 and
• police records which would prove that Mr. Unnamed Litigant never had possession of 10-20 firearms which were made part of his record incorrectly giving the impression Mr. Unnamed Litigant was some type of survivalist or militia type and
• evidence which would show Mr. Unnamed Litigant was forced into taking pleas in other matters when he was in fact innocent.  

Mr. Unnamed Litigant's protest at proceedings were met with intimidation, threats and coercion to "go along quietly" with the proceedings.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant was told he would be able to cross examine the main instigator of his issues and that she was present on the day of his hearing.  However, she was "dismissed" before Mr. Unnamed Litigant was able to question her.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant was also denied access to his files and documents which the public defender had.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant was unable to assist his own defense and contradictory police statements [written and oral] were overlooked and basically unchallenged by Atty. Ciora.

When Judge Dimitri "found" Mr. Unnamed Litigant in violation, Atty. Ciora neither objected or raised the issue of the promise that Mr. Unnamed Litigant would not be violated.  The Attorney General's office presented the court with a "32(f) Violation Report" declaring Mr. Unnamed Litigant's "Indictment / Information" as "P2/93-4100A - Burglary." [This is a capital offense that carries a possibility of life imprisonment]  This was in error and the exact same error had been done twice before and remained uncorrected despite objections and arguments raised regarding it.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant was NEVER convicted of burglary either by plea bargain or trial.  RI Superior Court Sentencing Benchmarks [particularly #1] under which Mr. Unnamed Litigant's conviction was controlled establishes punishment as "less than jail."  Mr. Unnamed Litigant was sentenced to 4 years to serve.

Following the above, Atty. Ciora told Mr. Unnamed Litigant that he had to plead guilty in District Court to the original charge of "assault" on Patrolman Toth in order to get a sentence reduction.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant asserts that Officer Toth's story is full of contradictions and inconsistencies and Mr. Unnamed Litigant could prove it but was denied the chance to do so.  When Mr. Unnamed Litigant reluctantly submitted to plead guilty for the sentence reduction, he was brought before Washington County 4th District Court and found out then that he was in fact being forced to plead to not only the assault charge, but two additional charges of violating restraining orders, both of which had been previously dropped.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant was brought back to Judge Dimitri for a motion to reduce sentence and was denied.  Some time during proceedings, Judge Dimitri intimated Mr. Unnamed Litigant was predisposed to violence by stating Mr. Unnamed Litigant lied about never having attacked anyone because "Mr. Unnamed Litigant was a black belt and had spent 15 years in the military." 

In Autumn of 2000, Mr. Unnamed Litigant received documentation proving that Atty. Ciora was aware of both the erroneous indictment information for "burglary", the controlling sentencing benchmarks and RI Supreme Court case law reversing and remanding for resentencing for not allowing counsel to address the court prior to sentencing.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant also received a 9-1-99 letter from Atty. Fishbein to the office of the public defender stating Judge Dimitri had in fact said he would not violate Mr. Unnamed Litigant.  This was confirmed by Atty Ciora.  

In early 2000, Mr. Unnamed Litigant was interrupted, shouted down and called a liar by Judge Dimitri when he attempted to raise these issues pro se [representing himself] in hearings to reduce sentence.   Atty. Ciora was present and when asked to confirm Judge Dimitri's statements, Atty. Ciora refused to utter a word.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant was told to withdraw his motion to reduce sentence or his sentence would be increased.  Mr. Unnamed Litigant withdrew the motion and the Asst. Attorney General moved the court to "correct sentence" by increasing or enhancing Mr. Unnamed Litigant's sentence.

Mr. Unnamed Litigant filed a motion to reduce sentence "nunc pro tunc" and it was heard Nov. 29, 2000 by Judge Dimitri.  The term "nunc pro tunc" relates to the inherent power of the court to makes its records speak the truth via correcting the record at a later date to reflect what actually occurred at trial.  This term means "now for then" meaning a thing is done now, which shall have the same legal force and effect as if done at the time which it ought to have been done.  The intent is not to supply omitted action, but to supply omission in record of action really had but omitted through inadvertence or mistake.

Judge Dimitri asked Mr. Unnamed Litigant if his argument was based only on the case of State v Pires, 525 A.2d, 1314 in which the RI Supreme Court states:

"...benchmarks promulgated as policy for sentencing by superior court provided acceptable guidelines and reasonable range for imposition of sentence at violation hearings.  Accordingly the sentence imposed must be vacated and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion."  

Mr. Unnamed Litigant responded by saying he was prepared to argue his cause.  Amongst his documentation was the case of State v Ratchford, 732 A.2d, 120 (RI 1999) in which the court held:

"in lieu of allocution in violation of probation proceeding, the lower courts should allow counsel to address the court prior to sentencing with respect to any mitigating factors which might militate against the imposition of consecutive sentences.  Sentence vacated."

Mr. Unnamed Litigant was not allowed to fully argue his case and the hearing was ended before Mr. Unnamed Litigant had a chance to rebut the prosecutions sole argument that the limitation had passed for sentence reduction.   Mr. Unnamed Litigant asserts the Attorney General's office knowingly, willfully and deliberately perpetrated fraud upon the court with misleading evidences, documents and statements throughout his case.  In addition to all this mess, Mr. Unnamed Litigant lost two jobs, an apartment and a residence in a half way house due to repeated warrants, arrests and incarcerations for failure to appear for review of a probation which had expired.   Just prior to the sentencing mentioned above, it was found this "oversight" was a "misunderstanding."   

Also, Judge Polumbo of Family Court met "ex-parte" [meaning with one side] with Mr. Unnamed Litigant's present ex-wife the day before his divorce decree was to become final and illegally signed it into effect despite Mr. Unnamed Litigant's motion to contest the divorce.  Judge Polumbo also issued an order stating Mr. Unnamed Litigant had to pay his ex $30,000 which Mr. Unnamed Litigant asserts she owed the bank PRIOR to their ONE YEAR marriage.  During prior proceedings when Mr. Unnamed Litigant attempted to inform Judge Williams that his wife was coming to him and calling police to have Mr. Unnamed Litigant incarcerated, Judge Williams told Mr. Unnamed Litigant, "Shut up or I will have you dragged out of this courtroom.  Can't you see we're deciding your fate here?"

Use The Back Button On Your Browser Or Go to the Caught! Home Page

EMAIL Caught! right now!